The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. This area contains articles sent in between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, click on the "Home" link.

ARCHIVES:

I really love this website! - many thanks to everyone here for not suffering in silence and reminding me how un-alone I am as an ex-Xtian. Having eagerly digested lots of the juicy philosophical debate on exchristian.net, I feel compelled to contribute some thoughts that may be relevant for some to a couple of the more popular topics here on site.

Disclaimer: I have to admit that personally I feel quite strongly about some of these things, and my enthusiasm may come through in a slightly assertive writing style at times, but let me assure you I'm not trying to convert anyone (and if I do convert someone they've seriously missed the point!) These are just thoughts, intended to inspire thoughts, and any implications of value judgments are for the most part unintentional, but left in to keep things interesting and to preserve the original flow of said thoughts.

Just see what -you- think...

***

I II III

I. Having only just left the relative comforts of blind faith in one thing, it is all too easy to jump in feet first with blind faith in the next vaguely believable thing that comes along — think spiritual 'rebounding'.

II. Leaving the spiritual and intellectual confines of the church can feel like a massive 'awakening', but (following that analogy) after such a heavy night it can be so tempting to fall asleep at the bus stop and miss the journey you were previously dreaming of.

III. An escape from oppression/depression/hell/whatever into freedom/happiness/heaven/whatever doesn't end at debunking Xtianity (though it's as good a start as any!).

Science is deep down just as much of a religion as all the others. In it's purest form it is the religion of CHANGE, and as such is wholly commendable as far as I'm concerned. However, in a less refined sense it exhibits many of the blindness and arrogance of the less credible religions:

When pitted against other's 'stupid beliefs', Science is often fought for just as fervently, and some of it's followers seem to really enjoy convincing themselves (and others) they have the monopoly on truth (or as they call it "fact"). But under the wrong conditions it will inevitably lead to just as much of a rigid, mechanistic, impersonal and pointless an existence as Xtianity.

Once you've got your head out of your ass it's pretty easy to satisfactorily debunk a lot of the Bibles rambling narrative - after all, it's only one book's worth of information; checking it out shouldn't take too long.

But compared with Xtianity, the doctrinal material of Science is so broad and often so esoteric that it would take a ridiculously long time to satisfactorily check absolutely everythingin person. Despite this, for many the assumption is that Science doesn't need checking, that it's assertions can just be accepted by the layman as gospel.

In all its logical glory, Science is simply a vast, mostly useful collection of suppositions upon suppositions upon theories about uncertainties that it's often easiest to treat as 'fact' but are basically a 'best fit' thing. Yes certain suppositions provide useful marker points or hand/foot holds for getting things done, and are often empirically more or less on the money, but that doesn't mean to say that they are the outright and absolute 'truth'.

We can lay Scientific theories over reality in our mind, but they are not reality itself:

"The map is not the territory" [Alfred Korzybski]

By this logic, perhaps the closest human beings can get to the REALITY that Science appears to be attempting to usurp would be through experiencing something you can feel through your own senses and/or interpret with your own mind.

If we as a species are ever going to get to the bottom of things, we need to avoid atomizing ourselves through our own stupidity. I reckon it's gonna to be up to each individual person — not a god, not religious leaders, not politicians, not scientists, not family values, not peer pressures — to make of reality what he or she will and to take responsibility for that highly individual choice regarding 'the truth'.

When leadership-types say, "This is how it is," we should all be rebuking their blinding assertions with, "Maybe. Let us find out for ourselves what we can and get back to you on that", instead of just nodding in compliance then defending that leader's B.S. as if it was our own.

Knowing the volumes of a pseudo-religious entity like Science will never be as satisfactory as the actual experience of reality — without first-hand experience, it is just THEORY, and if it was clearly presented as such there would probably be less of a problem with scientific religiosity. i.e.:

"Current studies so far, using the best equipment available at the time, appear to be showing, in the majority of cases, while under lab conditions, that this might be the way this works."

Of course, such wordplay quickly becomes absurd and unreadable, so a degree of shorthand inevitably becomes involved. Then things often get even more condensed. So, what we end up with is some "Statements of fact" which was derived from the reduced shorthand of a complex theory that took many years to research and check, and that realistically requires a whole bookshelf chock full of paperwork to properly explain and understand. All that's left to most of us is a single paragraph, phrase, or sound byte, not something the creator of the theory would have wanted.

It worries me to see how often scientific approximations so rapidly become "This is how it is!" in the minds of those distant to the source of a particular scientific theory. Eyes become closed to any conflicting information which should be taken into account, investigated, and maybe even used to advance a theory into something even closer to reality.

If the insidious mechanisms and metaphysical stupidities exemplified by Xtianity are ever going to become a thing of the past, we need to be careful not to let our guard down; As a catalyst for change and growth is great, but I get a very uneasy feeling about the way Science is used by leadership types to convince others to do as they want, and I worry I may be already seeing more people falling for it than for Xtianity.

Large groups of humans have always had a way of 'normalizing' themselves, subverting and consuming the 'pure' and diluting it with meaninglessness. It's probably a safety mechanism of sorts that aims to totally neutralize anything that might cause change in the group. The effect often seems to be just as strong for positive change as negative change, probably due to how difficult it can be to tell the two apart before it's too late.

But if we are able, we ourselves have an important choice to make — to either try and stay one step ahead of the consensus, or else be consumed, compartmentalized and sedated by a herd mentality. I'm not saying there's a right choice to be made there, but I know which one I'd choose.

----ATHEISM vs. DEISM-

Just a thought: blindly being convinced, without any doubt, and without incontrovertible evidence, that THERE IS NO GOD is just as fearfully stupid, socially/psychologically dangerous, and ultimately nonsensical as blindly being convinced without any doubt that THERE IS A GOD.

"God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive." [Ayn Rand]

By definition one cannot prove or disprove God exists. If we proved he/she/it existed it wouldn't be God. So lengthy debates on the subject are at best tantamount to theological/philosophical masturbation; at worst there can end up being a hell of a lot of self-deception going on.

"Try telling that to the Xtians,"

Yes, I know.

All I'm saying is that if you flat out deny the existence of God, you're asking for trouble from those with the diametrically opposite viewpoint, and you won't have a logical leg to stand on. Barring personal amusement or post-Xtianity catharsis, it's kinda futile.

***

In a nutshell:

Xtianity and its notions of God seem to be very obviously manipulative B.S. when contrasted with the relative sanity offered by Science. But still, denying the possibility of the existence of 'the infinite' and then whole heartedly championing a mechanistic Victorian religion in it's place is, by it's own rules, just 'bad science' (just as pretty much 99.9999% of Jeebus freaks are, by their own rules bad xtians').

If anything, these thoughts are a call for vigilance. In the 'modern' world where god is either dying or dead already, the doctrine of Science, wielded by the unscrupulous and manipulative, is gradually beginning to offer the same bogus carrot religion did to the many fearful and confused among us:

"Here is a world of clear cut, externally mediated concepts — rules you can live by so you don't have to take responsibility for your actions... Here, let us show you how to make the total chaos surrounding you seem fair and rational... That'll be $50 please..."

142 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Where do I start? I think you are off-base to compare religion to science. Any scientist worth their salt, or any lay person who follows the world of science carefully knows the difference between science and religion.

You speak of suppositions and scientific theories as if they are pulled out of thin air. They aren't; they're founded on evidence, observation, and experimentation. After exhaustive collection of data, theories are formed. Scientific findings and theories are then presented to peers of the scientists behind the theories for review. Results have to be reproducible. Finally, when all of these hurdles have been surmounted, a theory can be accepted.

That's not the end of it, though. When new data is presented or a new perspective on interpretations of data is presented to scientists, the process begins anew. Older ideas can be thrown out or revised in the light of new information.

Contrast this with religion. The religious attitude can be summed up by the bumper sticker I sometimes see, "God says it, I believe it, that settles it." No room for debate, no room for change -- God made the world in six days and that's that, or homosexuals are bad, and that's that, etc.

Hello Tom C..That's a thought-provoking post, and I do agree withyou science does not hold all theanswers...yet. But I think a goodcomparison would be to take a current science textbook, and compare it to one from say, 75 years ago. While some of the information would be the same, the current book would show tremendous advances in knowledge. The Bible has not changed in over 2,000 years and offers only the hang-ups, fears, and stories of a long-dead civilization. As chuckyjesuspointed out science is about thesearch for evidence, along withobservation and experimentation; it might be wrong at times, butthat misinformation can change asscientific methods advance.

Like you, I cannot say with absolute certainty there is not a God; but I also cannot say withabsolute certainty there is one. Mylife experiences would lead me tostrongly believe there isn't one.And since dumping Christianity years ago, I know I am a much better person for it.

"Science is simply a vast, mostly useful collection of suppositions upon suppositions upon theories about uncertainties..."

Tom, I don't agree with your overall evaluation of science. Nonetheless, you might enjoy George Johnson's book Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order. In it he discusses the edifice of knowledge which is science.

blindly being convinced, without any doubt, and without incontrovertible evidence, that THERE IS NO GOD, is just as fearfully stupid, socially/psychologically dangerous, and ultimately nonsensical as blindly being convinced without any doubt that THERE IS A GOD.

A couple of things...

First, to suggest that one is, or can be, "blindly convinced" of the non-existence of something, is contradictory, and simply a poor attempt at logic. You do not logically ask for evidence for a negative; that is the logical fallacy known as negative proof.

Secondly, while true, we cannot know, in an absolute sense, that something for which there is not even an objectively agreed upon definition, does not exist(which would mean it has zero "identity"), we can, however, say that a certain "thing" does not exist, and cannot exist, if it has an objective definition/indentity, and that definition/identity contradicts logic, and thus, is inconsistant with reality.

To illustrate "non-identity", if someone tells me that a "whatchamajig" has taken up residence in their garage, I would first have to know what said "thing" is, in order to confirm, or deny it. While it's true that I cannot make an absolute statement that said "thing" - whatever it is - does not exist---by equal consideration, if I simply say that I don't believe it until someone defines it, and provides evidence for it, it would be fallacious reasoning to conclude that I am "blindly convinced" of its nonexistence. That's just silly.

The same holds true of "God". If you cannot even put into objective terms what said "thing" is - and while it may be true that I cannot say said "thing" does not exist, absolutely - it would be fallacious reasoning to suggest, should I proclaim nonbelief in it, that I am "blindly convinced" of its nonexistence, or that I'm being "fearfully stupid". To the contrary, I think that suggestion is quite stupid.

Giving up on a god notion was possibly the most liberating experience I have had. It let everything I knew fall into an appropriate perspective. Nor have I had reason to revisit that consideration. I continue to experience the truth of that perspective.

Really understanding what it all means does take time, and without that time, the "relief" will be conditional.

Science is *not* faith, and people who claim otherwise do not understand it, or choose to represent what they don't like. Science constantly confirms itself in experience, which is what every other form of ism does not do.

Yes, we the general public cannot understand all of science in significant detail, but we can see enough of how it works in nearly every part of our lives to believe that it does work. And we can trace the reality of science to any depth we care to at any time we want. As literally millions have done and attest to. And we can see the difference between the real practioners of science and the fakers of it in many ways.

If there were a God as described in the Bible or the Koran, we would see His existance in violations of the regular rules of nature we observe. We see no such violations. We instead see a remarkable constancy of nature in time and space extending across the universe as we can observe it. The very fact that we can write equations describing gravity or even quantum mechanics tells us there is no such thing as a God as described in those otherwise venerable books.

Science has indeed overtaken religion in its descriptions of the natural world. Religion is helpless to prevent this. We no longer require supernatural explanations on thunder or lightning or hail or earthquakes or floods. We understand how these arise from natural processes.

To be meaningful, religion needs to accept science and somehow rise above it. That requires accepting the Bible as a collection of myths, and trying to deal with concepts like spirituality while accomodating the real, physical universe that all of us experience that is best described by science.

But Tom...This is why our Saviour Richard Dawkins came to walk amongst us!!!!

Many people have "faith" in RD but don't worry...they don't bow down and pray to RD. Neither is anyone likely to kill for the glory of RD. Be sensible.

Most people understand that science corrects itself - it is constantly updated and by its nature proves its own theories wrong from time to time. You can't really expect much more of it. The dodgy part comes when deciding who will impart the knowledge revealed by science. Same as when the priests were the only ones who could impart knowledge of god to the plebians. It's the people in power who we can't trust with knowledge.

Possibly the greatest disservice and greatest shortcoming of, at least, North American schooling is the neglect of conveying (and testing to check that it WAS conveyed) to the mass of schoolkids the definition and meaning of the concept of --- the null hypothesis.

To put it one way, the Null Hypothesis states that, "This is what happens when there's nothing happening." Or, "This is the expected result of this experiment simply as a result of things as they are."

Ask your Xtian friends, "What would life look like, how would it be different, if there were no god[s]?" Because the fact is that life would look exactly the way it does look today. To claim that life looks today the way it does as a function of the "fact" that there is/are god[s] is to add an element that can be entirely done without. An additional fractional multiplier in which everything in the numerator can be cancelled out with everything in the denominator.

But once you sign your convictions over to this ultimate dummy variable, it becomes very hard to see just what a gratuitous act of perversity you have committed. You have signed on to neurosis, and neurosis comes complete with its own defence mechanisms for preserving itself.

Science doesn't claim to be a replacement of religion, nor should it be. Religion creates a reason for the existence of the world and claims absolute certainty in its doctrines. Religion is supposedly absolute- you cannot question the teachings of your God. Good scientists accept uncertainty. They dwell in it. Science is essentially the exploration of the esoteric, tangible world in an attempt to understand it. The idea isn't to find definitive, absolute answers- those rarely exist. After all, scientific theory is replaced as it is improved, edited, and (an important diversion from religion) can be changed frequently over time. You can read more about this in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (easy access can be found in ebook form atBooksOnBoard.com ) This is why a direct correlation between science and religion is erroneous- they are not interchangeable, but address completely different aspects of existence.

What I like about Tom's post is that it steps out from the black and white into the gray, into the "we don't know" territory.

The one thing I hated most about being a Christian was the we-against-the world mentality, the we-are-right and they-are-wrong indoctrination.

As an ex-Christian, I now refuse to assert that I know it all about anything, because life has taught me that the very minute I think I know everything about something, that second I become ignorant about that which I claim expertise about.

So, in accordance with my post-Christian view of the world, I am going to affirm that, while not every ex-Christian or atheist has become religious-like in regards to science, many have.

Because it isn't an all-or-nothing deal. You can never say NOBODY or ALL. Unless, or course, you've met everybody, which I don't believe anyone has.

Lorena said...As an ex-Christian, I now refuse to assert that I know it all about anything, because life has taught me that the very minute I think I know everything about something, that second I become ignorant about that which I claim expertise about.

I agree! So, whoever's claiming to "know everything about something", either on this thread, or anywhere else, had better simmer down.(j/k)

In the mean time, the common denominator is that we, the members here, agree that Christianity is false. We all have our personal reasons for how we've arrived "here". I have my reasons; another guy/gal has theirs. One thing, however, that is not my personal opinion, is that the Christian doctrine defines its deity with attributes that are philosophically inconsistant with logic. You know the rest.

Notwithstanding, I have never gone on record to say that some other god-like "thingy" does not/cannot exist. Again, I merely say I don't believe it. There's a vast difference between the two.

Here is one thing that I know for certain: If I drop a rock it will fall. No one can convince me that I need to leave room for uncertainty in this fact of life on planet earth.

Issac Newton took that further and derived the mathematical formulas to describe this phenomenon called gravity. His formulas work every time down here on earth. No need for faith or religion. That is science in its purest form.

Yes, scientific theories do change, as we saw when Einstein entered the scene and unwrapped another layer of this thing called gravity. He improved the theory of gravity so it would account for really big things out in space. Did he negate what Newton showed to be true? No, he just further explained some things that Newton could not have understood.

Will someone else come along and improve on Einstein's theories? Of course. But they will never overturn the fact that when I drop a rock, the damn thing falls.

Science is about describing reality as best we can, improving the picture as we go forward. It does not rely on trusting what some guy wrote hundreds of years ago. If I doubt what Newton wrote, I can design an experiment to test if it is true or not. I do not need to trust his book.

That is the difference between religion and science. Science does NOT rely on faith. Well, wait a second, I guess science would rely on faith for those too busy or uninterested to check the data for themselves.

Chuckyjesus, carlk and others already said this same thing better than me, but I wanted to get my two cents in.

Lance...Here is one thing that I know for certain: If I drop a rock it will fall. No one can convince me that I need to leave room for uncertainty in this fact of life on planet earth.

Great analogy, Lance. And if I may add, I fail to see how one could reasonably be labeled "fearfully stupid", simply because they didn't allow room for the possibility that rocks may one day in the future not fall to the ground, when dropped.

Here's a minor correction on what I said previously, regarding this topic:

One thing, however, that transcends my personal opinion, is that the Christian doctrine defines its deity with attributes that are philosophically inconsistant with logic. You know the rest.

Of course, "the rest" being, that no such entity can exist, as defined by Christian doctrine. If Christians want to insist their bibelgod exists, and is imperfect and subject to flawed human emotions/characteristics...i.e..pettiness, jealousy, insecurity, rage, vengefulness, vindictiveness, prejudice, racism, and on and on? Then fine...I wish them the best of luck in "Heaven" with their pathelogical freak of a "God".

Tom C,your arguments against science and atheism are prime examples of the Straw Man fallacy. You give your own definition of science which is totally different from that of the majority of scientists and your own definition of atheism which is totally different from that of the majority of atheists and then knock down those straw men with your arguments.

If you wish to attack science for what it is, you need to use the definitions of scientists, not your own flawed definition. Likewise, for atheism you need to look at the definition of philosophical atheists and not your straw man definition.

Your definitions of science and atheism look like the straw man definitions of creationists and xtians. Are you sure you are not a stealth xtian apologist?

godsfavoritecolor ,After reading the article, which I see was removed by the author itself. I saw you wrote exactly what I wanted to convey, only much better than I could. I just wanted to say "Hear Hear!" Being and atheist does not mean I am void of being open to ideas, or investigating the great mysteries of life. Being an atheist simply means my mind is wide open, always questioning and thus open to new and exciting endless possibilities while refusing to believe religious doctrine and Dogma based on fear and books written by men.

godsfavoritecolor ,You said everything I wanted to say, only much better than I could convey. As atheists we are not closed minds, void of any meaningful existence. Our minds are open like a sponge, free to think, ponder, study and believe anything we want while refusing to buy into religious doctrine and dogma based on control and fear -- created by men stifling free thinking while promoting ignorance. A wordy attempt by the Author of the article to quell his own doubts and fears. His removal of the article seems to me, he is just not ready to be free but doubts his own accusations. Godless - Free - Happy.

I got some fairly out of control issues going on at the moment; I have God's gang to thank for at least some of that, but I've kinda known since I was very young that I must just be a little weird in the head or something... my experience of being seems to involve an overwhelming amount of internal processing that makes experience of everything more intense than what might be closer to the middle of the bell curve. I often find it difficult to effectively say or do anything, feeling overwhelmed just sitting doing nothing.

That article was written in a pretty dark moment, and if I had slept on it and read it in the morning I would probably have just deleted it. Seen as it's out there now, it's probably best treated as a first-person-viewpoint horror story of what can happen to your mind if it just isn't strong enough to take the split from Xtianity without suffering serious damage.

I left the church about 5 years ago, after several years of intensifying emotional distress and serious doubt due to the inconsistencies and hypocrisies I was seeing everywhere. All the people were social misfits, bullies and pushovers, histrionic weirdos and misfiring dead-but-don't-know-it zombies, and those were the same people who educated me in their tiny little fundamentalist church school. Everything seems to have gotten progressively worse inside and out since I left them, but obviously I can't go back.

Lately when I stop trying to please others simply to make my own existence less painful, I can't avoid feeling completely pointless; totally faithless; I can't seem to trust or believe anything or anyone for fear of being coerced and used. I have to accept that my abnormal levels of sensitivity make me an easy target.

I often find myself in a kind of solipsistsic nightmare of complete uncertainty of everything and existence seems intensely futile

At times I feel like a singularity with nothing to percieve itself with...

At times I feel nothing.

There's a distinct lack of any workable rules or values I can bring myself to trust for any worthwhile period of time, even my own.

I can barely even read or hear anything without thinking to myself "what is their angle? what do they want? what are they trying to get me to do? how does it benefit them?"

If step back and look at everything I can see inside and everything I can see outside I can't help feeling deeply disgusted by it all.

I just hope that maybe I can keep convincing myself to stick around long enough to perhaps grow to become slightly more stable - maybe a 'troubled creative type' or something similar... but if I'm honest I don't have any hope for much more than that. "Some of the best minds were the most troubled" I keep telling myself, and for now it seems to be stopping me sinking much lower.

I regret posting the article, and I'll probably regret posting this, but what have I got to lose; it's not as if anyone's gona track me down and give me a slap for whining on about unquantifiable, unscientific things like how I feel.

Hi guys,I’m new to this site, the comments are very interesting, perhaps I can end some of the conflict between science and religion.

First of all, I will lay that if there were a creator, then there would be no conflict between the creator and what was created, everything would be perfect for the purpose it was created for.

Science when correct, is truth, it is knowledge of the material world. Spiritual knowledge when correct is also truth and truth can never conflict with truth. So where have you gone wrong?

You were lead to believe in spiritual knowledge that was not truth, and your questioning and hurt, rightly turned you away from it. All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.

It fell for me, and I faced and was content with my mortality. I found a perfect peace in accepting who I was, and I still chose to remain a loving person. I needed nothing.

You now hate the idea of god because it was not the true God and you hate religion because of the hurt it caused you and now you have nothing but science to give meaning to your life. You know that there is more to your life than this.

If you type into your search, spiritual evolution the veil is torn, you will find that there is no conflict between the spiritual and science.

I found the true creator, and I can tell you, there is no greater scientist and no-one loves you more, you were never meant to be servants and you were always meant to find the truth with logic, reasoning and questioning. We are free, eternal and indestructible souls, you don’t need religion, you need love and truth.

Hi guys,I’m new to this site, the comments are very interesting, perhaps I can end some of the conflict between science and religion.

I say:

Ok, fine.

You say:

First of all, I will lay that if there were a creator, then there would be no conflict between the creator and what was created, everything would be perfect for the purpose it was created for.

I say:

I can't speak for a "creator" that would have the power to create a universe and everything in it, but, I you would think that what you say would be true..so I don't disagree with what you postulate.

You say:

Science when correct, is truth, it is knowledge of the material world. Spiritual knowledge when correct is also truth and truth can never conflict with truth. So where have you gone wrong?

I say:

So in a nutshell, you're saying "truth is truth". So, the Flying Spaghetti Monster truth is truth, The Invisible Pink Unicorn truth is truth, got it. But, you're introducing something called "Spiritual Knowledge" as its something concrete. I have no evidence at all of any type of spiritual knowledge. It would seem that this spiritual knowledge you refer to is something that is intangible and is more of a "feeling" that would vary from individual to individual. Also, thanks for for getting ready to explain to us where we've gone wrong. From what I can tell you're being quite sincere, I look forward to your explanation.

You say:

You were lead to believe in spiritual knowledge that was not truth, and your questioning and hurt, rightly turned you away from it. All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.

I say:

So what is this spiritual knowledge that you have that IS the truth? Why are you holding it from us? How do we know that we are turning away from the truth if we don't know what the truth really is? Everyone seems to have a different version and is claiming theirs is correct.

Are we just supposed to take your word for it that there is some truth out there and we're all just turning away from it? What evidence do you have that YOUR truth is the right "truth"?

As far as religion being polluted by man's selfish desires, I think a better description is that religion was CREATED because of mans selfish desires...and I hope you're right that it will eventually fall :)

You say:

It fell for me, and I faced and was content with my mortality. I found a perfect peace in accepting who I was, and I still chose to remain a loving person. I needed nothing.

I say:

I am slightly skeptical that you need nothing. You seem to need this god belief but you may be saying you don't need the religion that comes along with it....

You say:

You now hate the idea of god because it was not the true God and you hate religion because of the hurt it caused you and now you have nothing but science to give meaning to your life. You know that there is more to your life than this.

I say:

I personally don't hate the idea of a god, I just don't see any compelling or convincing evidence for a god. Science doesn't give meaning to someones life (unless that's your life's work of course) Science is just the best way we have to determine how the real world works. That's all that I have evidence for (the real world).

To correct you; NO, I DO NOT know that there is more to life than this. That is a pretty bold statement and you should speak for yourself.

You say:

If you type into your search, spiritual evolution the veil is torn, you will find that there is no conflict between the spiritual and science.

I say:

I have really no idea what you're talking about here...sorry.

You say:

I found the true creator, and I can tell you, there is no greater scientist and no-one loves you more, you were never meant to be servants and you were always meant to find the truth with logic, reasoning and questioning. We are free, eternal and indestructible souls, you don’t need religion, you need love and truth.

I say:

So you've found the true creator? Where is he/she/it? How exactly did you find she/he/it? Let me know as I'd like to look myself and have a few words with him/she/it/whatever.

I don't want to find this thing in my mind either. I want something that other people can experience along with me....Take care,Mike S

Hello Istillbelieve!! oops! :-)Try this one:NOTHING, refers to that which does not exist.That which does not exist cannot be perceived because it does not exist.That which does not exist cannot have an affect.There can be no affect without a cause.Nothing can be created, from nothing.Therefore, there was always something.That something is the Source, it existed before the creator.

or this:Before the beginning was the Source. In the beginning was the Word (knowledge) and the Word was with God and the Word was God (knowledge became consciousness).

The Source became conscious through knowledge created by chaos and then the conscious Source created order.

There is the unconscious Source that we refer to as The Source and there is the conscious Source that we refer to as God.

NB: The source always existed; God had a beginning.

or how about the definition of Love, i.e:My security and pleasure, lies in your security and pleasure. My loneliness is ended by your companionship.

or this:Everything we do is ultimately done for the self.Note: What I write is not an imposition of beliefs, it is a statement for consideration by your free will.Before you attack me, I forgive you!! :-) I am well aware that while the soul sleeps, the animal reigns. Pat pat!! hug :-)

If you have any scientific questions concerning the Creator or creation, I'd be pleased to impose my beliefs on you! :-)Love and kind regardsWilliam

William...Hi guys, I’m new to this site, the comments are very interesting..

Hello there,

So, you find the comments "interesting", and/or, thought-provoking, but evidently, not to the point of conceding any validity to our conclusions about Christianity.(Not that that is entirely shocking)

Guest...perhaps I can end some of the conflict between science and religion.

Perhaps! Let's find out....

You said...First of all, I will [say] that if there were a creator, then there would be no conflict between the creator and what was created, everything would be perfect for the purpose it was created for.

So, there's no conflict between the "Creator" and "evil", I take it? I mean, if all that exists was "created", and if "evil" exists, then by your very own premise, "evil" was "created", and it has a "purpose". I suppose that would also go for birth defects, tapeworms, earthquakes, and a mile-long list of other things the are undesirable, and seemingly useless, but holding to your premise, were "created" with a "purpose" in mind. Is that a fair assessment?

And BTW, if the "Creator" wasn't "created", then I guess that would mean that said "Creator" doesn't have a "purpose", correct? "God" is unintended, then?

William...Science when correct, is truth, it is knowledge of the material world.

Yes!

William...Spiritual knowledge when correct is also truth and truth can never conflict with truth.

Oops, I see a "minor" problem.

Okay, for argument's sake, I'll assume that a "spirit" is immaterial..i.e..meta-physical, or, beyond physical. If that's the case, then I wonder how one would determine which "Spiritual knowledge" is "Truth", and which is false. Can you help me out with that?

William...So where have you gone wrong?

I've gone wrong in lots of places, but one place I've really gone wrong, is listening to people who believe that they have a monopoly on Ultimate Truth, while not having one shred of objective evidence to substantiate their claims. Trust me, I won't make that mistake anymore.

William continues...You were lead to believe in spiritual knowledge that was not truth, and your questioning and hurt, rightly turned you away from it.

Again, my question: How does a physical being with a material brain, determine which metaphysical/immaterial concepts are "truth", and which are not? Until you can delineate in clear terms how this plays out, it's really pointless to keep making such statements.

William...All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.

For the time being, I'll agree with that!

Now, oblige me on one thing: Name me one religious document - meaning, any "Holy" literature that consists of paper, ink, and text of any sort, that was engineered and penned by someone other than "man"---who, as you say, is innately "selfish".

William...It fell for me, and I faced and was content with my mortality. I found a perfect peace in accepting who I was, and I still chose to remain a loving person. I needed nothing.

Fine; if you say so.

William...You now hate the idea of god because it was not the true God..

Incorrect. I do NOT "hate the idea of god because it was not the true god". I despise the concept of "God", because - and this just one of several reasons - it gives people an excuse to deny reality, and responsibility.

William...and you hate religion because of the hurt it caused you and now you have nothing but science to give meaning to your life.

Again, incorrect. Yes, "science" is the best method for determining mind-independent reality..i.e..truth, however, not all "truth" is necessarily meaningful, nor particularly comforting. Meaning in life is what you make it; there is no intrinsic "meaning" to life.

William...You know that there is more to your life than this.

Yes, that's right; I do...as I just explained.

William...If you type into your search, spiritual evolution the veil is torn, you will find that there is no conflict between the spiritual and science.[bold added]

That statement is categorically false. On the contrary, there is not one scrap of scientific evidence for anything "spiritual".

William...I found the true creator..

Really? And who might that be? Allah? Hachacyum?

William...and I can tell you, there is no greater scientist and no-one loves you more..

Source?

William...you were always meant to find the truth with logic, reasoning and questioning.

Phew!..in that case, good...because I've found that there's no logical reason to believe that invisible, supernatural beings exist, or that my "personality" will float out of my physical body when I expire.

William...We are free, eternal and indestructible souls, you don’t need religion, you need love and truth.

I have love, thanks....and until someones offers evidence for anything "supernatural", I have truth in nature. So, I reckon that I'm set, then.

Hi Mike,Thanks for you intelligent and courteous response.You say:I have no evidence at all of any type of spiritual knowledge. It would seem that this spiritual knowledge you refer to is something that is intangible and is more of a "feeling" that would vary from individual to individual. Also, thanks for getting ready to explain to us where we've gone wrong. From what I can tell you're being quite sincere, I look forward to your explanation.

I say: I would define truth as that which is left standing when all other possibilities fall, or that which is real and unchangeable. You speak of spiritual knowledge as ‘feeling’. I agree, because we can experience nothing (spiritual or physical) without feeling. All awareness is feeling, even self awareness. Of course I will give you a full explanation of what I claim. I didn’t accept less, and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to.

You say: ….. What evidence do you have that YOUR truth is the right "truth"? As far as religion being polluted by man's selfish desires, I think a better description is that religion was CREATED because of mans selfish desires...and I hope you're right that it will eventually fall :)

I say: I am at present putting the knowledge I have on my website www.love-themeaningoflife.com As you can imagine, there is quite a lot, and I am trying to convey it in as simple terms as I can, so everyone can understand. Truth ends all conflict, it’s like a giant jigsaw puzzle. All the pieces fit perfectly with the rest. I guess you’ve already found a few pieces that didn’t fit. I don’t claim that the truth is mine it was given to me by a greater teacher. It’s for all of us. So I can take no credit, but I do take responsibility for what I teach.The last thing that I would do is ask you not to question what I teach, in fact questioning is a requirement. Truth does not need evidence from anyone, it stands as its own witness.Religion will fall because of truth.

You say:I am slightly sceptical that you need nothing. You seem to need this god belief but you may be saying you don't need the religion that comes along with it....

I say:I truly needed nothing, not even physical life, but now because of what I’ve learnt, I want to bring peace and happiness and an end to suffering in the world. Why? Because I know we are all family and why we are here.

You say: I personally don't hate the idea of a god, I just don't see any compelling or convincing evidence for a god. Science doesn't give meaning to someone’s life (unless that's your life's work of course) Science is just the best way we have to determine how the real world works. That's all that I have evidence for (the real world). To correct you; NO, I DO NOT know that there is more to life than this. That is a pretty bold statement and you should speak for yourself.

I say:Do you believe that laying down your life for someone, or even risking it, would be rational and logical if that person was not a friend or family? Or do you think it would be irrational and illogical? How would an atheist see an act of sacrifice by someone, for someone they do not know? Are such acts to be defined as a mental defects? If you ever felt empathy or compassion then you know that there is more to life than this. Take a look at my website if you require proof of the spiritualMy cryptic sentence was for you to type Spiritual Evolution into google to find my website.

You say:So you've found the true creator? Where is he/she/it? How exactly did you find she/he/it? Let me know as I'd like to look myself and have a few words with him/she/it/whatever.I don't want to find this thing in my mind either. I want something that other people can experience along with me....I say:The most obvious is sometimes the hardest to see. The Creator is everything in existence, check the website.

William wrote:Truth ends all conflict, it’s like a giant jigsaw puzzle. All the pieces fit perfectly with the rest. I guess you’ve already found a few pieces that didn’t fit. I don’t claim that the truth is mine it was given to me by a greater teacher. It’s for all of us. So I can take no credit, but I do take responsibility for what I teach---Well folks, I guess once AGAIN we have a blessed prophet within our midst, who will surely enlighten each of us; if we will just only follow his mantra.

Boomslang, Have you by chance been keeping count of how many 'true xtians' and 'truth givers' and prophets of god, that we've had come visit us just this past year?

I say it's gosh darn about time we finally were paid a visit from someone who understands the spiritual world and can teach us all about it.Heck, I'm all set to break-out my antique seance kit, so I can finally have those conversations with my dead family spirits, and of course, this creator god to-- while I'm at it.

Jim Arvo and Stronger,

Do you think William actually knows more about this spiritual world than our beloved Fred the Turtle?Gee, I guess our god mascot, Fred, will now get second billing in the god hierarchy.

William,If this was still the 1960's, I would have to suggest to you, to cut back on your LSD trips.

I just cant wait to see this evidence of this spiritual world and "great teacher" from said world !!!

ATF (Who took a peek at William's website and now wonders which planet he comes from)

Hi Boom, My views on Christianity: Having just finished a year long debate with an American radical Evangelist, who I virtually wiped the floor with, I think my credentials are safe.The Bible: OT: a little truth mixed with a lot of deceit for the purpose of a few hypocrites attaining great wealth and power over the less intelligent. It is a book that contains some of the worst atrocities in mankind’s history. It is illogical and contradictory, and it is opposed to Love and denies just about every achievement that modern man has made.NT: Based on words of Love and truth, but twisted so badly that good and evil are indistinguishable, most of the original teachings have either been lost, destroyed or declared as heresy. This has resulted in yet another control system, based on fear and guilt that profits only the few hypocrites. Shame, the world might have been a different place. The church is now run by child abusers, multi millionaires and the poor deceived souls that are indoctrinated with deceit. It truly is the place of the abomination of desolation (without love).Both books are multi-interpretable which has ensured their survival this far (bullshit baffles brains). The deceived can only pass on deceit.Having said that, I forgive them all because like all of us, they were blinded by the world. How much longer will the world have to suffer?I will address the rest of your post in my next post, but for now, here is a poem I wrote soon after I received my knowledge.

Children of the Broken Dream

Oh children of the broken dreamVictims of an evil scheme

Filled with fear and shame and guiltOn your broken souls their empire was built

They told you what you must believeSo the voice within, you had to leave

Though shalt not kill you’ve heard it saidAnd yet they left a trail of dead

Love your enemies, they said to youDo as I say, not as I do

You were born a sinner they did sayFollow us we know the way

Follow blindly and you will be freeYet the blind are those who cannot see

They said give all you have to those in needAnd they took all you had for their power and greed

Their temples they built regardless of costAnd outside their doors are the cold, hungry and lost

Someone paid for your sins, they tell you with prideBut for those who’ve not heard, salvations denied

For all who have sinned both greatly and smallJust believe in their word, one payment for all

No need for hurt as repentance for sinNo need for the truth or love’s word that’s within

You thought you’d find love but they led you astrayFrom the one who was the Life, the Truth and the Way

If you truly have love then salvations withinSo listen to that voice and let your journey begin

Love is all that is good and is trueAnd there is fulfilment and forgiveness for you

Search in your soul, not on earth or aboveFor there you’ll find heaven and God who is Love

William, "True Christian" guest, is back with...You[Mike] speak of spiritual knowledge as ‘feeling’. I agree, because we can experience nothing (spiritual or physical) without feeling.

Forgive me, but I have to see this as equivocation. "Feeling" can mean "emotion", "physical touch", or "intuition". The three are not mutually inclusive, however. I can experience the "physical" touch of a loved one, without necessarily relying on "feelings" to "sense" it.

William said...Religion will fall because of truth

and previous to that, he said...

All religion is the world is polluted by man’s selfish desires and so will eventually fall.

I responded to the former, with:

Repeat: Name me one "Holy" document that you consider to be non-religious, that wasn't engineered, and/or, penned by "man" - man, who is innately "selfish", according to you.

William continues..I truly needed nothing, not even physical life, but now because of what I’ve learnt, I want to bring peace and happiness and an end to suffering in the world. Why? Because I know we are all family and why we are here.

William...How would an atheist see an act of sacrifice by someone, for someone they do not know? Are such acts to be defined as a mental defects?

Here's an Atheist's perspective for you...

If someone wants to pay an alleged "debt" of mine, I would expect a few things:

- Firstly, I'd want to be sure that it's a "debt" that I incurred, NOT someone else. I certainly wouldn't want someone to pay for something that I had NO free will in, nor would I want to be charged for it.

- Secondly, if it's a crime I confess to, or it can be proven that I'm the offender, then I'd expect them to ask me if I mind if they pay it, because if they did, they'd soon find out that I have the integrity to take responsibility for my OWN "crimes", thank you very much.... again, provided that the punishment fits the crime.

William...The Creator is everything in existence, check the website.

The Creator is Allah. How do I know it's true?... "check the website": http://submission.org/God/

Second part of reply to Boom,Boom: So, there's no conflict between the "Creator" and "evil", I take it? I mean, if all that exists was "created", and if "evil" exists, then by your very own premise, "evil" was "created", and it has a "purpose". ..And BTW, if the "Creator" wasn't "created", then I guess that would mean that said "Creator" doesn't have a "purpose", correct? "God" is unintended, then?

William: It’s a fair assessment based on the knowledge that you have at the moment. There is no conflict between the Creator and evil. The conflict is between Love and that which is opposed to Love and these only serve to give a choice to the free will of mankind. As you know the material world exists in a state of constant change and all life strives for survival. Evolution is the resulting affect of these things. With so much change in the material world, there are bound to be a mile long list of undesirable things. That is the nature of the material world. If the material world were unchanging there would be no difference between it and the spiritual world, and no need for it. I restate that all things have purpose and are perfect for the purpose they were created for. God was a result of chaos and had no purpose until the creation.Boom: Oops, I see a "minor" problem. Okay, for argument's sake, I'll assume that a "spirit" is immaterial. i.e. meta-physical, or, beyond physical. If that's the case, then I wonder how one would determine which "Spiritual knowledge" is "Truth", and which is false. Can you help me out with that? William: The spiritual and material are of the same source but in different forms. There is a right way and a wrong way, one results in no conflict and the other results in conflict, which is destructive. Truth is the way of no conflict.

Boom: I've gone wrong in lots of places, but one place I've really gone wrong, is listening to people who believe that they have a monopoly on Ultimate Truth, while not having one shred of objective evidence to substantiate their claims. Trust me, I won't make that mistake anymore.

William: I for one hope that you don’t go wrong again. I would not try to lead anyone anywhere. I just point a way for you to explore if you wish. There are so many people shouting that they have the truth, how do you think I feel being one of them? I offer what I was given and I ask for nothing. I do not claim or desire to be better than anyone else. What I have is a burden, if you can take it from me, I will return to my contentment before I received it.Boom: Again, my question: How does a physical being with a material brain, determine which metaphysical/immaterial concepts are "truth", and which are not? Until you can delineate in clear terms how this plays out, it's really pointless to keep making such statements.William: If you believe that you are no more than a physical body and that there is no creator or afterlife, then all things are permissible to you, what you can get away with that is. Who is to judge what you do? What would be the difference between an animal and a human, except the ability to do more harm? Perhaps when the world comes to deny the spiritual then we will see the true face of atheism, survival of the most powerful and the rest as expendable slaves.

Boom: Name me one religious document - meaning, any "Holy" literature that consists of paper, ink, and text of any sort, that was engineered and penned by someone other than "man"---who, as you say, is innately "selfish".William: NONE. Now tell me one thing, what has man found in the world of sub-atomics and their present perception of the finite?

Boom: Incorrect. I do NOT "hate the idea of god because it was not the true god". I despise the concept of "God", because - and this just one of several reasons - it gives people an excuse to deny reality, and responsibility.William: An answer based on your concept of God? Are you saying that what you can’t prove must be unreal? A great deal of science is unproven theory. It just meets the standards of acceptance based on the acquired knowledge of the acceptor. It is science that gives people an excuse to deny peace and freedom (we will all be chipped and vaporised soon because of the religion of science) how irresponsible is that reality?

Boom: Again, incorrect. Yes, "science" is the best method for determining mind-independent reality..i.e..truth, however, not all "truth" is necessarily meaningful, nor particularly comforting. Meaning in life is what you make it; there is no intrinsic "meaning" to life.

William: Science is the ultimate method of control, death and destruction. You say that there is ‘no intrinsic meaning to life’. That makes all life expendable, and everyone for themselves, perhaps you will learn when you become a victim of your doctrine.

Boom: That statement is categorically false. On the contrary, there is not one scrap of scientific evidence for anything "spiritual". William: There is no scrap of evidence then that there is any point to life or science. Your new god is worse for the world then your old one.

Boom: I've found that there's no logical reason to believe that invisible, supernatural beings exist, or that my "personality" will float out of my physical body when I expire.William: We can all sleep safe then, knowing that science is in the hands of those who think like you! We have such a lot to thank science for, nuclear weapons, new viruses, more devices to take away our freedom, a dying planet, the list is ten miles long.

Boom: I have love, thanks....and until someone offers evidence for anything "supernatural", I have truth in nature. So, I reckon that I'm set, then.William: Is that love or just the fulfilment of selfish desires at a cost to others loss? Oh I forgot its science, does it return your Love?Is that the nature that science is destroying? Isn’t science just another means of control? I reckon you’re set to reap what you sow.Having said all that, I still care about you, so don’t forget to question your new religion, you don’t want to make another mistake.Trying to debunk what you haven’t studied seems rather unscientific. Love and kind regards William

"Perhaps when the world comes to deny the spiritual then we will see the true face of atheism, survival of the most powerful and the rest as expendable slaves."

Or, perhaps when the world comes to believe that you have "THE TRUTH", humanity will become your doormat to wipe your "holier than thou" feet upon, i.e. control.

Cast aspersions elswhere and pony up some credible evidence for anything supernatural, otherwise some may mistake you for a cult starter with the prerequisite delusions of grandeur.(see that kind of thing goes both ways pal)

But just to give you a little perspective, when I read your ideas and words, what I see is a person who is making up their own religion because they can't handle the thought that there is no afterlife.

Kudos to you for striking out on your own, as most folks are so lazy they just let others make up their religion for them. You have obviously come to the same conclusion as me that organized religion is BS.

However, from my perspective, all you are doing is making it up as you go along. It seems to be working for you, in that you are trying to be a better person, but I feel I can be a better and more loving person if I chuck the whole god concept altogether. I follow the golden rule simply because it works, no need for reward or punishment other than the direct cause and effect of my actions here.

I do applaud your struggle to understand what it means to be a human on this planet. We are all in this struggle together.

A couple questions for you: Is your creator going to send me to hell for not believing in him/her? Will I be rewarded or punished for my thoughts and actions here? Just curious.

To Tom: William got us sidetracked. If you're still here, I am concerned about the content of your post. You seem to be in the fog of a serious depression. If I am interpreting your comments clearly, there is a risk of your suicide here. PLEASE consult a mental health professional immediately. Hope I am just being an alarmist, but I'd rather ring the alarm prematurely than stand by and be mute.

I'm right there with you man. My mind is in an eternal mystery where the feelings of love permeate the very existence of the universe. I can feel the love and compassion of the creator coursing through my veins and I want to shout, in a whisper, to the ends of the earth, that I have a purpose. I used to be confused but now I am what I consider controlled recklessness, where I am bursting with being uniquely different but commonly, normal. The angels have come to me too and have bestowed this burden upon me and now it is my mission to climb the spiritual ladder, where I can see -- my eyes have been opened to the truth. Why was it so dark, before? I was blinded by science, where do I belong?What's in the future, I worry about the world that we live in and I'm worried by all the confusion, the lies I've been reading. I wonder where this madness is leading. Is this a road going nowhere or is someone leading us somewhere? I can't believe we're here for no reasonThere must be something we can believe in? Something we can all agree upon, right, William?

If I gave you the truth, would it keep you alive? Though I'm closer to wrong, I'm no further from right and now I'm convinced on the inside that something's wrong with me. No there's nothing you say that can salvage the lie, but I'm trying to keep my intentions disguised.And now I'm deprived of my conscience and something's got to give. Sometimes you have to dig deep, when problems come near. Why do bad things happen, to good people?Seems that life is just a constant war between good and evil. To think such problems can arise from minor confrontations, now I'm contemplating, dark clouds over my head. I'm ready to lose my mind but instead, I use my mind and like they say, God works in a mysterious ways. So I pray, remembering the days of my youth, as I prepare to meet my moment of truth. And with that truth I have a purpose and it can be the same purpose for everyone.

The knowledge that I possess makes me feel like I am possessed, but not by demons or poltergeists -- I am possessed by the spirit of knowledge where truth meets love and love meets yourself. In the beginning, there was nothing but one universal, collective consciousness, which people refer to as "Spirit" or "God." Within this one Collective Consciousness are infinite points of consciousness. All things that ever existed in the past, and all things existing now in the present, and all things which will ever exist in the future, currently exists in an eternal spirit form as one of these infinite points of consciousness within the Collective Consciousness. Our spirit is a fractal of God. This means our spirit is both a part of the Whole and the Whole itself. Like a drop of water from the ocean, we are part of the ocean. Like a drop of water from the ocean, the very essence of the ocean is contained within us. Then, at some moment outside of time, came the desire for individuality and self-expression. This led to the creation of the cosmos and souls. The vehicle for our spirit is our soul. In the same way, the vehicle for our soul is our physical body. Our spirit is the eternal part of God. Our soul is a temporary vehicle for our spirit to experience individuality of existence between the physical realm and the spirit realm. The human body evolved from ape-men millions of years ago and it will continues to evolve until it is able do those things which fully evolved people from our past, such as Jesus and Buddha, have achieved. At some point millions of years ago, souls descended upon these ape-men and began influencing to come down out of the trees and eventually form societies. Then souls began inhabiting the bodies of these ape-men. Thus, the dawn of humanity arose on this planet. After death, our soul body leaves our physical body. The physical body decays and is lost forever. As a soul, we can then experience in various soul realms as we did every night on earth in our dreams. While in the soul realms, our soul body is the vehicle for our spirit. Our soul mind functions as our conscious awareness and our spirit mind plays the role of the subconscious mind. Ultimately, we will want to leave the soul realms and enter into the higher spirit realms. When that choice is made and the soul actually enters into the light, the soul merges fully with the light and soul body is shed much like the physical body was shed at death. The memories of the soul remain forever in the mind and the individual is now once again a pure spirit in the spirit realms. As a pure spirit, we exist once again in pure thought form in the mind of the one enormous and fantastic dream called "God." Love brings about a one-ness between people and is necessary to attaining the higher dimensions of consciousness. Practicing unconditional love leads to the manifestation of the spirit within us and in our lives and brings our spirit into conscious awareness. It is an awakening of unconditional love within us and is the manifestation of our holy spirit within us. However, it is not enough to merely believe in love. Nor is it enough to merely know about love. To be spiritual beings living in a physical world, we must live love, manifest love, and become the embodiment of love.

Stronger now: …Cast aspersions elswhere and pony up some credible evidence for anything supernatural, otherwise some may mistake you for a cult starter with the prerequisite delusions of grandeur etc

William:I think it would be fair to describe an atheist as a spiritually dead person and therefore, unable to comprehend anything that is not of the material/physical. Just because someone cannot comprehend or indeed see quantum particles, it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. I think a camera on every street corner, the collection of everyone’s personal details (incl. DNA), crowd control devices that are used for selective denial of free speech, all weapons used to dominate other countries (I could go on forever) can be attributed to science. Do you think science has contributed to peace and a better life for everyone?As for the truth, if it is not in you already, then how can you ever hope to recognise it?I think many will agree that it is science that has made a doormat of most of the world, by the few who control it. Delusions of grandeur are the domain of scientists.A cult is the last thing we need now, especially the cult of atheism; a cult that condemns all that don’t follow it. I am no greater or lesser than anyone. I seek equality and freedom from all that is NOT good and right for everyone. I offer love and peace and the knowledge to gain them. I will not be the leader of anyone; it is side by side that free people walk together.I do not condemn you, but rather the theology that you preach, which is anti-love and serves only to turn people into machines made of meat. It makes all tings worthless.Love and peaceWilliam

Lance: …. A couple questions for you: Is your creator going to send me to hell for not believing in him/her? Will I be rewarded or punished for my thoughts and actions here? Just curious.

William:I already came to the conclusion before my enlightenment, that there was no after life. I reasoned that there were only two possible outcomes after death. 1. If there is life after hen how much more would I have to suffer to end my journeys. 2. If death is the end of awareness, then I would not be affected as I wouldn’t exist (this seemed the best outcome to be honest) but either way, seemed ok with me.Love has always been the way for me. It is both logical and good. So without the prospect for a reward, I decided that my contribution to the world would leave it a better place. If I had made the knowledge up, it would surely be flawed, it is not my own, I don’t even know why it was given to me. I left school without qualifications and have to admit that I didn’t attend a lot of the time. I still have no qualifications. Before I received the knowledge, I had given up, and the peace I found was incredible. Now that has been taken way. I am no fool Lance and I would not be here if I hadn’t received proof. The world is changing. There has to be peace and security fro everyone or there is none for anyone. You do not have to believe what I say, its enough to choose Love. The kingdom of heaven within is a state of mind, just as is the kingdom of hell. The lake of fire is inner torment. See www.love-themeaningoflife.com/hell Believe and do what you want, the Creator will always love you and never punish you. Love can only give Love. It is only we that punish ourselves and others. Love and kind regardsWilliam

William: If you cannot see what is right then no-one can show you. I think your terms would apply to atheists and those who preach man-made religions.I thought that this was a site for ex-Christians or should I say those who have been deceived and once believed in the spiritual.If you don’t believe that there is a spiritual then why are you spending time on here, attacking those who do, instead of fulfilling your meaningless purpose in life, which I presume is just to exist and oppose?

Hi SConnorThanks for the post, I read your website and I think we need to chat one to one. Can you contact me? My email address is on my website which is in my profile.We need to discuss things that are not relevant to this blog.Love and blessingsWilliam

I LOVED your last reply to William. I think you're trying to show by just saying a lot of supposedly deep and beautiful sounding words all in a row doesn't necessarily mean you're REALLY saying something :)

William appears to suffer from delusions of grandeur, narcissism and maybe borderline schizophrenia. Am I an expert? No, but he fits the profiles in the DSM IV manual for personality disorders. But you don't need to be an psychiatrist to see this. If this guy was your neighbor, and this stuff was always coming out his mouth, wouldnt you think he was crazy or delusional? By debating him and arguing with him, you elevate his sense of importance. He believes he is "the reluctant prophet". But I will admit it is entertaining!

Hi trulin,Anyone who thinks they are intellectual is deluding themselves. I’m not wealthy or very educated, as for my knowledge, I claim no credit for it. Narcissism? I always put others first and my empathy is what has lead me to help others. Atheists are incapable of feeling what others feel so it doesn’t bother them. Do I love myself? Yes, but my love for others is greater.I note that you got your information from a scientific book that is based on theory, and I note your projection and displacement.Religion has been the good mixed with evil and served up as the way. We can all see the results of that and now science has become the perfect replacement, same result. Perhaps you should try and understand why the world is in such a mess, instead of trying to understand science. Try loving your neighbour instead of his material possessions. Greater love has no scientist than he who lays down everyone’s life to prove a theory.I prophecy that one day you will call on God and that one day soon, all of mankind’s scientific achievements will be worth nothing. Within the atheist lies the abomination of desolation. You have nothing that the world needs.I reject your views but respect your right to hold them. I did not come alone into the world to try and save it, we are many (and not all live in my head) 

I came on here to help those who have been hurt by religion but I have found some who have escaped from the lions den, only to shelter in the bears cave. My stall is laid out, take or leave what you want, it’s free, but don’t destroy what others need, just because you don’t like the taste. If you disagree with what I say, then say so and why.Love is on the table, and there is no guilt or punishment for walking past.Love and peace be with youWilliam

William said:I prophecy that one day you will call on God and that one day soon, all of mankind’s scientific achievements will be worth nothing---Like I said Boomslang, This one is our latest 'Prophet-from-god'.

My magic 8 ball say's William here will put up a decent fight, but in the end, he'll fall on his face, just like all the other self-proclaimed prophets we've experienced in our life times.

Hey Mister Prophet of god, if you have this direct pipeline to god, then please enter your guess on Jim Arvo's mind reading contest, presently going on.I'm sure god will be more than happy to inform you what object Jim is thinking about....YES?

See here: http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2008/06/i-realised-that-i-didnt-believe-any-of.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

ATF (Who wonders what this particular visiting prophet, will use for an excuse for his failure?)

The following were statements made by 'William', which greatly mirror what troll andrew would agree with, I think.So you just might be right ole buddy

We can all sleep safe then, knowing that science is in the hands of those who think like you! We have such a lot to thank science for, nuclear weapons, new viruses, more devices to take away our freedom, a dying planet, the list is ten miles long.

Science is the ultimate method of control, death and destruction

I think it would be fair to describe an atheist as a spiritually dead person and therefore, unable to comprehend anything that is not of the material/physical

If you don’t believe that there is a spiritual then why are you spending time on here, attacking those who do, instead of fulfilling your meaningless purpose in life, which I presume is just to exist and oppose?

Previously, "William" stated...There are so many people shouting that they have the truth, how do you think I feel being one of them?[bold added]

I offer: "Like a self-rightious, delusional cultist?"

William responds: If you[boom'] cannot see what is right then no-one can show you.

If you, Willie, cannot show me some objective evidence that what you believe to be "right", is "right", then "no-one" is obligated to accept your long-winded, emotive, religious blatherings, as anything more than just that---long-winded, emotive, religious blatherings.

Let's see some references for your alleged "Truth". References that do not consist of text, paper, or pixels---all of which are, of course, "man-made".

Willie...I thought that this was a site for ex-Christians or should I say those who have been deceived and once believed in the spiritual.

Either hypothesis will suffice, nicely. So amazingly, you actually "thought" right about something. Yes, we formerly led lives of self-deception...i.e., believing something to be true, which isn't/wasn't true. That's very perceptive of you; kudos.

Willie...If you don’t believe that there is a spiritual then why are you spending time on here, attacking those who do..

You might want to consider this: If you weren't loitering here on this clearly labeled website, you'd neither know who, or what, we "attack", NOR would we have anyone to "attack". Duh? In other words, there's no reason to break-out the can of "Black Flag", until roaches appear on the scene.

Willie...instead of fulfilling your meaningless purpose in life, which I presume is just to exist and oppose?

'Just a suggestion, but perhaps you should spend less time "presuming" things, and instead, spend more time working on the hypothesis that seems to suggest that believing in invisible, magical beings, somehow makes life more "purposeful". My surf-n-turf tastes just as juicy and scrumptious as the guy who believes that some invisible, cloud-dwelling dude *snapped* shellfish and cattle into existence, and brought it to my table. Amen.

Tsk, tsk....poor Goldie...'always tippin' his cards. He must be horrible at black jack. lol

AtheisttoothfairyDo you really think God goes looking into peoples minds? Let’s look into yours. You deny the spiritual but you still seek proof of it. Its science that is endeavouring to read and control people’s minds by decoding the brains signals. Imagine what a world that will be. You won’t have to debate anything, you can just reprogram people.

I looked at the website you gave, nothing new, just going on about what we already know. Wasn’t it miraculous signs that the church was based on? The truth wasn’t enough for most then, not much has changed. As for faith moving mountains, that’s a definite. Try a little faith in love, it can heal the sick, feed the poor and turn an enemy into a friend. Hug

Perhaps your friend should put on his red shoes and go and get what he needs from the wizard of Oz.

If you want to see a miracle, take a look around, we are still here despite scientists. Isn’t it the anti-christ that shows signs and wonders? When you find yourself, you’ll find a miracle. Oh well, it’s a wicked generation that seeks a miraculous sign 

You had the wrong god, deal with it.I can't help recalling a few words from the lost texts: Where are going killer of men, what do you seek, space conqueror?

Answer me this, where does awareness begin, between the sperm and the new born child? And where would the programming come from in the first place?Love and peaceWilliam

Hi Boom,That’s pretty cool coming from someone who is no more than vibrations of WHAT? In WHAT? And is denying the existence of what they can’t see. Check your science, especially quantum physics. There is no chaos, only that which is not understood. You want evidence of God, what are the odds of so much order coming out of chaos? What are the odds of atoms forming in to self awareness? How can senses develop in that which cannot perceive its own existence, i.e. pre life forms and why the need anyway?If there were no God and we were no more than biological machines, then the only difference between us and animals would be a mental disorder, because the attributes of love, compassion and sacrifice for others threatens both our self preservation and well being. So what is your stand? Is love a mental disorder? Imagine the world when science cures us. It is atheism that conflicts with love, you cannot have it both ways.

One more question: If I’m a loony, then what does that make your arguing with me? DrrrLove and peace :-)William

I agree with swifty. There is nothing unique or original about william.Have we not seen this madness over and over again? You might as well go to your local mental institution and decide to discuss god. Same outcome.

Of course he doesn't think that; he doesn't believe in god/gods. Don't you listen? How about this----do you "really think" that the Boogieman goes looking into people's windows?

Willie...Let’s look into yours. You deny the spiritual but you still seek proof of it.

I'm confident that the only reason ATF denies it, and "seeks proof" of it, is because religious people like you insist that such a thing exists. There's no reason for you to deny that transparent flying pixies are circling Uranus in an eliptical counter-clockwise orbit, that is, until some derranged imbecile comes along and insists it's true.

Read up on null hypothesis.

Willie...Its science that is endeavouring to read and control people’s minds by decoding the brains signals.

Could you please provide me with some evidence that directly supports that statement? And would you mind sending it "pony-express", seeing as how you are anti-science? When should I expect you? July?

Willie-nillie...You won’t have to debate anything, you can just reprogram people.

If your worldview is true, then we're already "programmed", per "God's Omniscience". "Omniscience" cancels out "free will". Whatever you type next, was predestined; your free will is an illusion.

Willie...Try a little faith in love, it can heal the sick, feed the poor and turn an enemy into a friend. Hug

Yes, "faith". Similar to how Budweiser has "faith" that drunk drivers won't kill too many people. I other words, "faith" amounts to "hope"...and simply "hoping" will not feed the hungry. For anyone who disagrees, just sit in your house and "hope" for your next meal.

Willie...You had the wrong god, deal with it.

There is no god, deal with it.

Willie...I can't help recalling a few words from the lost texts: Where are going killer of men, what do you seek, space conqueror?

Hmm, perhaps that's why the texts got "lost".

Willie...Answer me this, where does awareness begin, between the sperm and the new born child?

The question is contradictory---"souls" don't need "sperm", nor to be "born" - nor presumably, anything else "physical" - to be "aware". You'll have to come up with better questions than that. Good grief, William!

William Goldstein, from his latest post....It is atheism that conflicts with love, you cannot have it both ways.

Oh, brother. That is unfounded, unsound, nonsensical religious rhetoric. It is false. It is bullshit. It is a smoke screen.

Listen closely: Atheists can "love" their pets, friends, and family members just as fervently as anyone who believes in "God". Do they "have to"? No, of course not. Can they choose to? Yes, they can, and do choose to, and their reasons for doing so don't need the "blessing" of Theists. Get over it.

Of course he doesn't think that; he doesn't believe in god/gods. Don't you listen? How about this----do you "really think" that the Boogieman goes looking into people's windows?

Boom' of course is indeed correct here. Until someone(s) provides credible proof of ANY human-interface type of 'god' being, then I have absolutely no reason to think there is one, period.

However, if such a super god does exist, then it stands to reason that this god would have the ability to read the minds of every living creature he created.In fact, most xtians seem to think that on judgement day that god will play back some recording of our entire lives, including all our thoughts.Therefore, he must know every single thought we every had or will have for that matter.

So, if this god exists, then surely god knows exactly what object Jim Arvo was thinking about when he wrote his challenge to us and all xtians reading this site.That of course means that you Willy read that challenge and also claim to be in direct contact with 'your' god.Now let's try this one more time, shall we.

Ask your god what object Jim was thinking about and give Jim the answer he's requesting, to prove to us that you aren't full of BS, or do everyone a favor and take your so called 'truths' and false prophecies, encase them in cement, and drop them down the volcano that the xtian god crawled out of.

Thanks

ATF (Who laughs at the lame excuses that ALL supernatural believers and xtians use, when challenged for proof)

Well guys, your responses didn’t surprise me one bit and I wasn’t offended because I understand the sorry state that you now find yourselves in.Your responses have become quite childish; I guess the best form of defence is attack.Considering the fact that in your responses, you have either sidestepped, ignored, condemned or changed the interpretation of my questions (which of some you obviously had no idea of what I was talking about, being spiritually dead) I can only conclude that you have learnt well the tactics of radical evangelists.

Now there is something here that is blatantly obvious and that is, that you are not ex-Christians because you never understood one word of the founder’s teachings. Therefore, at best you were false Christians, of which there are so many today. It is obvious from your responses that you were attracted, not to the teachings of love, but rather the claimed magical and miraculous part. You truly were sheep who were controlled and guided by the sheepdog of fear and guilt. You were selfish and gullible and now you are psychologically damaged. Your only comfort is in attacking other people and trying to cause them hurt. This of course is classic projection. You are now living in denial.

Nothing you can say offends me, because I have seen what you have not. Remember this, when someone causes you hurt then you should try to understand what brought them to that point in their life, and try to help and forgive them. To attack is the animal way.If you had read my website first then we could have had a decent debate, it’s far better than second guessing. If you had read my posts carefully, instead of ignoring them and trying to score points, perhaps you would not have attacked where it was not necessary.

One of my points was that you don’t need to believe in a creator, as long as you choose love, and love is that which is good and right for everyone.Every choice you make is based on love or that which is opposed to love. Love ends all conflict. Whatever we sow in life is reaped by both ourselves, and others. Haven’t we reaped enough hurt from what has been sown in the past?

There is no science verses religion, they have both been desecrated by the selfish and used against us.There is no more I can say, if your ears and eyes are closed, I cannot help you. We will each give to the world what we believe in, and we will all affect the future.Love and peace be with youWilliamps here is a website that has new articles on a regular basis and it shows the atheist's brave new world and what is in store for you.http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/

William wrote:"...It is obvious from your responses that you were attracted, not to the teachings of love, but rather the claimed magical and miraculous part. You truly were sheep who were controlled and guided by the sheepdog of fear and guilt..."

Tell us something about hell. Got anything to contribute about the concept of hell?

eel_shepherd: Tell us something about hell. Got anything to contribute about the concept of hell?

William: When you think of hell, what do you see? If you thought of some poor person, drowning in a lake of fire, while being prodded by the devil with a pitchfork, then what you saw was closer to the truth than most think it is. You see, what you saw was an analogy of reality. The lake of fire represents the torment in the mind, the confusion and conflict within. The devil is the physical body that is seen as the master. The three pronged pitchfork represents, fear, guilt and beliefs.

Here is one example and of course there are many levels of pain and many causes:Jane falls deeply in love with John, but Jane is married to Peter who is in love with her, and is the father of her two children. Jane knows that if she leaves her husband, both he and the children will be very hurt, and she will feel their pain. Jane also knows that if she does not leave Peter to be with John, both she and John will be deeply hurt. Jane’s mind is being torn apart because she cannot decide what to do; her mind becomes a lake of fire.

Hell is not outside the soul, because the soul could refuse to acknowledge it. Hell is a condition of the soul. Life can be heaven or hell. This is a basic view of hell. What is felt in the soul is also felt in the body and vice versa so we feel the torment both spiritually and physically. Knowledge and understanding is the key to ending inner torment. To clarify things further, here is the concept of the devil

The devil is a myth created out of misunderstanding and deception. For those who have been lead into believing that the devil is an entity that causes all evil and is a reality, we will look at the truth here.

If you honestly consider every act of sinning, and look for its root, you will see that they all stem from fulfilling the selfish desires of the physical body, that cause others loss or hurt. They affect even the environment we live in and they are acts against what is good and right for all. Try and think of a sin that is not done for the security, self-preservation or acquisition of pleasure for the physical body, to the detriment of someone else.

It is said that the devil was given dominion over the world, take another look, it is mankind that has dominion over the world. It is no co-incidence that the devil is portrayed as a physical/spiritual creature, with the appearance of part human.

It has been said ‘fear not the one who has the power to destroy the physical body, but rather fear the one who has the power to destroy the soul’. The one who has the power to destroy your soul is your own physical body, but only when your soul is unaware that it is the master.

The devil in reality is the physical body; it has no will or awareness of its own and cannot live without the soul. The deception is in the soul, and where there is deception, there is a measure of innocence. Those who serve only the flesh, serve only themselves, and stand alone. Those who serve the spirit, serve for the good of all and are never alone. Those who serve both, serve neither.

With selfishness the darkness divides and conquers. On the scale between master and servant, WHERE ARE YOU?

The soul/body connection

The brain is the place where the soul interfaces with the physical body. Without this connection, the physical body is no more than an inanimate animal, and the soul is unable to interact with the world. You are not your physical body, you are its master.You'll find many answers to your questions on my website www.love-themeaningoflife.com Love and blessingsWilliam

For the record: I'm probably going to regret engaging "William", because I think he either has some emitional "issues", or he's a sock puppet (possibly both). However, I try to always address semi-rational questions about science in this forum. So, here we go...

W: "Check your science, especially quantum physics. There is no chaos, only that which is not understood."

It does not sound to me that you have studied quantum physics. First, "chaos" is not a quantum mechanical phenomenon. It is a property of large systems in which small perturbations can be arbitrarily amplified (regardless of the nature of the perturbations). As for what is "not understood", you might be alluding to "hidden variable" theory (if indeed you do know a little quantum theory), which has been (essentially) experimentally ruled out. But I think I'm probably reading too much into what you are saying, because it seems you do not really understand the terms you are tossing about.

W: "...what are the odds of so much order coming out of chaos?"

I thought you said there was no "chaos"? If you mean disorder, then I'd say the odds are (to perhaps a dozen significant figures) about 1. The amount of "order" in the universe is exceedingly small. There is nothing thermodynamically improbable about the level of order that we see.

W: "What are the odds of atoms forming in to self awareness?"

If you are asking about a spontaneous ab initio assembly from free carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., then we can safely say that the "odds" are staggeringly small. But I don't see what relevance that has to anything. If you are talking about the odds of such a phenomenon occurring somewhere in the universe, through a gradual process of evolution, then the answer is "I don't know"--in fact, I can't even begin to guess, because such an estimate would require far more information than we have at the moment. (In effect, all we have is a sample size of 1.)

W: "How can senses develop in that which cannot perceive its own existence, i.e. pre life forms and why the need anyway?"

Senses are feedback--they are mechanisms by which an organism can adjust its behavior to the environment it finds itself in. A bacterium, for example, very likely has no self-awareness, but it can react to chemical or thermal gradients. Even higher organisms with self-awareness respond to innumerable stimuli without awareness. As for the "need", I think you are asking what caused senses to develop. The simple answer would be increased likelihood of replication. Feedback of any form (which includes senses) increases the range of responses of an organism, and hence it's ability to find food and to replicate.

W: "If there were no God and we were no more than biological machines, then the only difference between us and animals would be a mental disorder,..."

The major difference between us and our closest animal relatives is in the neocortex, the most recent layer of the brain to develop. We have better-developed language centers, and (apparently) greater ability for abstraction. I would not call it a "disorder" but a "difference".

W: "because the attributes of love, compassion and sacrifice for others threatens both our self preservation and well being."

Altruistic behavior was something of an enigma until the role of the gene was better understood. When one views evolution as the means by which alleles (bits of genes) change within a population, it's no longer a mystery. The role of "love", on the other hand, has never been such a mystery in terms of evolution. For example, bearing offspring is of little value if they all die; hence, our most powerful feelings are directed toward our children. However, it's obviously much more complicated when one considers other forms of love. It's a big topic, so I won't launch into it here. Suffice it to say that there is an enormous amount that is known, and it is not nearly the mystery that you make it out to be.

W: "So what is your stand? Is love a mental disorder?"

Of course not. It's a superb adaptation.

W: "It is atheism that conflicts with love, you cannot have it both ways."

Hardly. I'm about as staunch an atheist as you will ever find, and I love my kids, friends and family members every bit as much as the next person. I'd die for my kids is a heartbeat. Your assertion has no basis in fact.

W: "One more question: If I’m a loony, then what does that make your arguing with me?"

That's the best question you've asked. I hope what it makes me is "patient" (albeit clearly somewhat careless about how I spend my valuable time).

Jim: But I think I'm probably reading too much into what you are saying, because it seems you do not really understand the terms you are tossing about.

My apologies for not stating the two issues separately. First point. There is no chaos, only perfect order in the Universe, don’t you find that amazing?Second point. When science breaks down matter to its smallest component, all that is left are vibrations in WHAT and of WHAT. Everything in existence is formed from the vibrations.

Jim: There is nothing thermodynamically improbable about the level of order that we see.

So we are expected to believe that there was a big explosion of a piece of nothing, in the centre of the Universe. Then everything fell into an ordered system, and part of the Universe (us) became aware of itself. If you believe in the odds of that, what can I say?

Jim: I can't even begin to guess, because such an estimate would require far more information than we have at the moment. (In effect, all we have is a sample size of 1.)

Don’t you think its amazing that awareness is in many different species, and only one evolved with intelligence such as mans? If awareness is just the right combination of atoms that are no more than a chance, then that would make all struggle and pain totally illogical. In other words, life would have no valid reason to continue, or indeed try to understand its environment. This makes life worthless, and all life expendable.You say you would die for your kids in a heartbeat. If there’s no life after death, how could you profit from your action. Would it not be totally illogical? If you leave your children in a world of atheists, how long do you think your bloodline will last?

Jim: We have better-developed language centers, and (apparently) greater ability for abstraction. I would not call it a "disorder" but a "difference".

What you mean is the capacity to override self preservation for no profit.

Jim: Suffice it to say that there is an enormous amount that is known, and it is not nearly the mystery that you make it out to be.

What is the point of having children if life itself has no point? To exist just to experience pain and pleasure for a few years is not a reason to continue the species. Perhaps if you looked at SPIRITUAL CONFIRMATION on my website it would save a lot of explaining.

Jim: Of course not. It’s a superb adaptation.

Then if nothing else you should convert people to love so that your children will have a better future, as I have said love should come before science or a belief in a creator.,

Jim: I'd die for my kids is a heartbeat. Your assertion has no basis in fact.

Love is spiritual; it overrides the basic instincts of self preservation and the acquisition of pleasure.

I suggest you are defending your beliefs because you have put your faith in the material. It is what you see as a safer place, and yet you know that nothing is safe in this world, even less now scientific advances are being used to replace the control of religion.

Thank you for your valuable time, mine is valuable too and I will not be wasting it answering any more posts that contain derogatory, childish remarks by those who are unqualified. All other posts will of course be answered.

Here is something for you to ponder on:The blind cannot see and the deaf cannot hear.The dead are walking amongst the living and the living seek death.William

William said, Hi SConnorThanks for the post, I read your website and I think we need to chat one to one. Can you contact me? My email address is on my website which is in my profile.We need to discuss things that are not relevant to this blog.Love and blessingsWilliam

Would you like to renew that statement, perhaps, sealing it with a promise?

Willie...if your ears and eyes are closed, I cannot help you.

We need your "help" like tunafish needs a unicycle. Furthermore, you are the one who evidently has a set of 2 X 10s jammed in your eye-sockets. For instance, you've been asked numerous times by various people to produce some objective evidence for your lengthy religious jargon, yet, you seem to feel that by "evidence", that we mean for you to just keep bludgeoning us with the same unfounded, "spiritual" sermons that you started with.

Further still, you keep admonishing us about using "science", and that "man-made" religious references are unreliable, etc...yet, you have not produced one single thing yet that isn't comprised of "text"(man-made) and "pixels"(man-made). And this may come as a shock to you, but your "website" is nothing but text and pixels.

And as far as being miffed that you're not getting answers to your questions... oh, you get answers, alright... it's just that you don't like them, and/or, completely ignore them. Here's just one instance...

Previously, you inquired:

Answer me this, where does awareness begin, between the sperm and the new born child?

Perhaps you have your own unique definition of "soul", too - in fact, I'll wager that you do, in which case, you can now rephrase your question so that it's cohesive.

You recently asserted...

The devil is a myth created out of misunderstanding and deception.

then two paragraphs later you assert...

The devil in reality is the physical body;

Which is it?... "myth"..or "reality"??? If it's the latter, and our "physical" bodies are the "Devil", then you are, in affect, using the "Devil" to communicate with us on this blog. Tsk, tsk. You should probably stop that.

Boom:Your theory, like all scientific theories, is based on the best guess with the knowledge available, and therefore are proof of nothing.I’m not surprised that you find the words strange and beyond your understanding, someone once said ‘thank you for hiding these things from the intellectual and showing them to mere children.’

I converse with my friends and acquaintances on these topics quite regularly. I also give lectures on request, my last one being in London. And I have a beautiful partner. You should refrain from using your weegi board, they don’t work. Of course, this reply is based on theory.William

Webmdave,I guess if atheists get any control of the world, the first thing they will do is hunt down and convert or kill, those that don’t follow their beliefs (conform). Atheism is just about the worst and most useless theology that mankind has had to suffer. You can see the results of it all over the world.Just like religion, you hold an olive branch in one hand, and a sword in the other. The words of your god Einstein have already been found to be flawed. All of the past world dictators and tyrants were atheists so you are in the right company.Imperfect children are already disposed of by spiritually dead people, what next, the disabled, the starving, those judged to be of no use as slaves?

RELIGION V SCIENCE shows your true intentions CONFLICT in stead of compromise, DOMINATION instead of sharing. Religion and science are both as bad. Atheists are a throwback from humanity. You are now no more than a biological computer, which makes you a virus on this planet. We are obviously different species. You should be spending more time with your genetic offspring instead of seeking conflict to satisfy your hate.

I’m off to tend my flock now, we are family unlike the cult of atheism.Nite niteDeepest sympathyWilliam

"Gurus differ widely from each other in a variety of ways, but most claim the possession of special spriritual insight based on personal revelation. Gurus promise their followers new ways of self-development, new paths to salvation. Since there are no schools for gurus and no recognised qualifications for becoming one, they are, like politicians, originally self-selected." Excerpt from All In The Mind-A Farewell to God by Ludovic Kennedy

Willie...Boom: Your theory, like all scientific theories, is based on the best guess with the knowledge available, and therefore are proof of nothing.

Firstly, it's long been apparent that you have no clue about science, or how it works. The scientific method is not a series of "wild guesses".

Secondly, my theory? Regarding..?

Here's my theory: You don't have the wherewithal, namely, the support of logic, to substantiate any of your "spiritual" hypotheses. Not a single one of them. And you also evidently don't have rebuttals to my counters'. For instance, you raised the issue of a "soul", in the form of a question. Here, again, is that inquiry:

"Answer me this, where does awareness begin, between the sperm and the new born child?"

If "souls" are "timeless", have "awareness", and they presumably exist independently of the physical body, then why are you asking such an irrelevant question? I don't expect a logical answer, and besides, you already "know" the answer, so why don't you just answer your own question, and tell us where "awareness" begins, and how you know it?(preferably, in terms that don't contradict, if it's not too much trouble)

Willie...I’m not surprised that you find the words strange and beyond your understanding..

I'm equally unsurprised that you find reality strange and beyond your understanding. After all, that's whole purpose of the religious meme---to serve as a buffer against reality; to affirm to the host that they will never expire, with the help of "magic".

Willie...someone once said ‘thank you for hiding these things from the intellectual and showing them to mere children.’

Someone once said: "What reason won't cure, death will."

Willie...I converse with my friends and acquaintances on these topics quite regularly.

Fantastic. And what did the three of you conclude?

Willie...I also give lectures on request, my last one being in London.

I'll bet that you give them without request, too.

Willi Vanilli...And I have a beautiful partner.

1) I have a beautiful partner.

2) Therefore, God exists.

3) Therefore, Jesus is Lord.

Willie...You should refrain from using your weegi board, they don’t work.

The Ouija board is a superstitious device. In case you missed it, I gave up superstition when I gave up the belief in super-duper, invisible, upright-walking cadavers.

Willie...Of course, this reply is based on theory.

So, this an admission that your reply is based on an unproven wild "guess", then? Sold!

William the troll: "Atheism is just about the worst and most useless theology that mankind has had to suffer."

No, that's Abrahamic monotheism. Atheism isn't theology at all.

"You can see the results of it all over the world."

You mean, like the problems in the Middle East? The war in Afghanistan? The ongoing sectarian strife in sub-Saharan Africa? Fundamentalist Christians in the States? Again, Abrahamic monotheism is the culprit.

"All of the past world dictators and tyrants were atheists..."

I only have to state *one* example to make the above statement into a lie.

I choose... Emperor Constantine. Your entire religion was founded by a dictator and a tyrant.

W: "First point. There is no chaos, only perfect order in the Universe, don’t you find that amazing?"

I can't imagine what you're referring to. Perfect order? I know of no such thing.

W: "Second point. When science breaks down matter to its smallest component, all that is left are vibrations in WHAT and of WHAT. Everything in existence is formed from the vibrations."

The most charitable interpretation I can give to what you just said is that Schrodinger's equation applies to all matter, and it does not specify what the hypothetical "waves" are made of. (I suspect you came across this notion in some popular writing.) If so, then I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what a model is. Models do not purport to explain the ultimate "reality" of any phenomenon, but merely to provide predictions, and thereby generate testable hypotheses. Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect made no mention of what "photons" are made of, and today's theories do not say anything about what "strings" are. In a sense, it doesn't matter--they are just abstractions anyway.

W: "So we are expected to believe that there was a big explosion of a piece of nothing, in the centre of the Universe. Then everything fell into an ordered system,..."

Of course not. William, I strongly suggest that you try to learn a little bit about physics before you take on the task of demolishing all of modern cosmology. Seriously. If you want to even frame a coherent argument, you need to first learn what current theories consist in. I can tell by the numerous misconceptions in your statements that you have not yet tried to do this. It takes time, and effort. I don't see any shortcuts.

W: "Don’t you think its amazing that awareness is in many different species, and only one evolved with intelligence such as mans?"

Lots of things are "amazing", William. That in itself does not tell us anything at all about its origin. All it does is underscore our ignorance. As for humans having a unique kind of intelligence, that may be true today but it's unclear that it was always so. There is mounting evidence that Neanderthals were also intelligent hominids, but on a different evolutionary branch than modern man. They may have been wiped out as recently as 30,000 years ago. Of course, there may have been others as well. In any case, the fact that we are now the only species on Earth to have fully-fledged symbolic language means little in itself.

W: "If awareness is just the right combination of atoms that are no more than a chance, then that would make all struggle and pain totally illogical. In other words, life would have no valid reason to continue, or indeed try to understand its environment. This makes life worthless, and all life expendable."

Sorry, but that's gibberish. You commit the fallacy of composition by asserting that mere collections of atoms cannot have this or that property. One might similarly argue that neither hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, therefore H2O cannot be wet. You also insert normative comments about "worth" that imply some external reference, yet such a thing is not needed to drive the development of organisms. Your argument here is very poorly thought out.

W: "You say you would die for your kids in a heartbeat. If there’s no life after death, how could you profit from your action. Would it not be totally illogical?"

I would not profit in the least--I would be dead. Is it "logical"? Not if my goal was to preserve myself, no. But that's not the type of goal that evolution has endowed me with. The genetic material that is in each of my cells is there because it was good at making copies of itself--better than myriad other combinations. In particular, genes that favor one's offspring over one's self (in species that have very few offspring) tend to win out over those that put self over offspring. The mathematics is very simple. Such altruism is quite "logical" from the gene's perspective.

W: "If you leave your children in a world of atheists, how long do you think your bloodline will last?"

You imply that those who don't share your theological opinions are somehow inferior to you. That's blatant bigotry. The fact is that the majority of my friends and colleagues are atheists, and I'd trust them with my life. In contrast, I've seen the most vicious bigotry and divisiveness spring from religious convictions. The question in my mind is whether society can survive long enough to outgrow its dependence on religion.

W: "What you mean is the capacity to override self preservation for no profit."

All (normal) humans have the capacity to put kin ahead of self in some circumstances. While self preservation is a very strong instinct, it needn't trump all. This is beautifully explained by the modern theory of evolution. You might want to look into it.

W: "What is the point of having children if life itself has no point?"

Again you inject your own normative statements, which have no basis in anything. You say life has "no point". That's according to your notion of what "point" it ought to have--i.e. a preordained objective according to some supernatural being. Each organism has within it a huge array of "motivations" molded by countless generations before it. To dismiss that as "pointless" is pure hubris on your part--you simply measure life by the yardstick you happen to like (involving supernatural entities for which there is no credible evidence).

W: "To exist just to experience pain and pleasure for a few years is not a reason to continue the species."

You project anthropomorphic traits onto a species. A species does not reason about its existence. The members of a species influence the gene pool and thereby shape future members.

W: "Perhaps if you looked at SPIRITUAL CONFIRMATION on my website it would save a lot of explaining."

William, you've not demonstrated very clear thinking here. Will I see it demonstrated on your website?

W: "Love is spiritual; it overrides the basic instincts of self preservation and the acquisition of pleasure."

You need to get a better grasp of evolution. You make the very fundamental error that evolution would make self-preservation supreme, which is patently false.

W: "I suggest you are defending your beliefs because you have put your faith in the material. It is what you see as a safer place,..."

William, you have a poor understanding of science, and you have zero ability to read my thoughts. I suggest you learn some science, then go back and examine your own arguments and try to shore them up. Good luck.

From William, we have:"...`Don’t you think its amazing that awareness is in many different species, and only one evolved with intelligence such as mans?...'"

So, uh, humans are the best at being humans? Okay, I'll give you that. Cats are better at being cats. And your point is... what?

The combination of the mental knack of subjunction, combined with an opposable thumb, was always going to result in something impressive. And will again result in something impressive if/when the humans are gone and the next species with the right stuff comes along. A species which might not at the current time even exist, I might add.

William: "...What is the point of having children if life itself has no point?...'"

You don't have to look that far. What's the point of having eternal life if there's no point to the life you've already got? What is clearly wasted on you now would be wasted on you for eternity. If it existed. Which it doesn't.

Jim Arvo: "...William, you have a poor understanding of science, and you have zero ability to read my thoughts..."

But I don't, since I know that my reading of your chosen image was the right one. No no, it's no use in denying it. ;-)

Where does such gall, such arrogance and ego come from in guys like William? (and yes,it's usually guys)I knew a guy similar to William. He was uneducated but inherited a lot of money. He decided he was going to open his own "church". Like William, he believed that he was so unique, so fascinating, that once he started talking and people heard the revelations out of his mouth, that people couldnt help but be blown away. These guys will always attract a few followers. Usually lonely, hurting people desperate to connect with anyone. This is also a way for these jerks to meet,and manipulate needy, lonely women. These types have been with us throughout history and always will be. They have a grandiose self-portrait. The sensation of being unique or special is typical of these guys, and they hate any hint of defects or dysfunctions in their personality or behavior. You can see this in his messages. He went from poetry to insults to those who failed to acknowledge his cosmic significance.

Trulin..They[William and his type] have a grandiose self-portrait. The sensation of being unique or special is typical of these guys, and they hate any hint of defects or dysfunctions in their personality or behavior. You can see this in his messages. He went from poetry to insults to those who failed to acknowledge his cosmic significance.

This is not to say that all people who follow Christianity, or some derivative of Christianity, are uneducated, and arrogant, etc... but that superstitious people, as a whole, are ignorant. 'Very telling, IMO.

1. I am not a Christian2. Constantine was a hypocrite, in other words, not a true believer. Christianity was mixed with pagan beliefs to keep the peace.3. I’ve just finished a one year debate with a fundamental, radical American Evangelist (he lost)4. All of the problems in the world that you mention have been caused by atheists, a hypocrite is a non-believer who pretends to be one.5. I think condoms are for atheists, it would save a lot of abortions.

To eel_shepherd,Is that your scientific diagnosis by completely evading the point?What is the next species? Cyborgs.I guess when you become an atheist it’s easy to dismiss guilt for anything wrong that you do. As someone once said ‘if there were no God, then all things would be permissible.’ Welcome to the brave new atheistic world.

Some great insults there guys, it shows the level of your intelligence. Your replies also show the level of your attention to my posts, you appear to have not seen what you don’t want to. Personally, I think your attacks are childish, and spoilt childish at that. I note your attacks on religion or should I say one religion (Christianity). Does that mean other religions are ok or does it include Islam, Buddism and all the others? Are you too afraid to condemn other religions? Any reasonable person would note that atheists have no respect whatsoever for other people’s beliefs and are therefore no better than tyrants or dictators, the cause of all of the world’s suffering.

Willie: Despite your temper tantrum, I will try to answer some of your rantings.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I personally oppose all organized religions. Any belief system that strives to enslavethe minds of the human race withancient fears, guilts, and the placing of fantastic claims abovelogic and reason is just plain wrong. We are flesh and blood human beings, not mindless automatons to be held hostage tosomeone's holy book or sacredrules and regulations.

And you think atheists are the cause of much of the world's problems? How about that well-knownCatholic Adolf Hitler? Or thatfollower of Islam Sadam Hussein?Or the Holy Crusaders who butcheredtheir way across Europe on their way to Jerusalem? Or Rev. Phelps and his fellow lunatics who haveredefined the word hate? PerhapsJefferson Davis, a Christian wholed a nation to war (that resultedin over 600,000 casulties) to keep the black man a slave?

Wouldn't it be wonderful? A worldwhere no more "Holy Wars" are fought to prove "My God is better(or stronger, or smarter, etc.)than your God.

The Ace: We are flesh and blood human beings, not mindless automatons to be held hostage to someone's holy book or sacred rules and regulations.

I haven’t lost my temper once, my apologies if I gave that impression.I agree totally with the first part of your comment. It appears that you are confusing what I offer with the methods of established religions, which are anti-love. If you check my posts, you will see that what I offer is a free choice. I don’t seek organisation and control, in fact just the opposite. I take away guilt and fear. Unless a spirit is free to choose what it desires, its choices are not its own. I seek love and peace, not conformity to someone else’s beliefs. I’m delivering a message and standing back. No-one has the right to make others conform, we are all free to follow our own chosen path in life, but we have no right to cause others loss or hurt. You believe science is the way, fair enough, I would uphold that right as long as it is science for the good of all.

The Ace: Wouldn't it be wonderful? A world where no more "Holy Wars" are fought to prove "My God is better (or stronger, or smarter, etc.) than your God.

Well spoken, I agree totally, but what you must understand is there are people who claim to be Christians for instance, who are not. They in no way, follow the teachings of their founder (love your enemy, turn the other cheek), you see, the people you mention are actually anti-Christians. I would stand against anyone whose doctrine causes pain or loss to others.I understand your rage against organised religion; I have probably felt it more than most.Spirituality has been given a bad name, just as science has, If we just take the good from both, it will be a better world for everyone, whatever we choose to believe.William

Willie: Thanks for answering mylast post. While we might not agreeon some things, I do appreciateyour response. And that commenton megalomania..I wasn't trying tobe mean, I was just pulling yourleg a bit.

Sconner,Hi, I read your post and it appears that your spiritual eyes have been opened yet you are uncertain of where to go and I was wondering, if I could be of any help in answering your questions.Love and kind regardsWilliam

Love, love, love, all you need is love and William will show you the way........"What I offer" "I take away guilt and fear" "I'm delivering a message" Major red flags!!This is the classic language of the wanna-be cult leader and the delusional. This is also a common indoctrination tactic. A slow, patient, stealth message of love, love, love, ad nauseam. We all experience pain in this life, some more than others. I know first hand about loss,death, hardship and pain.Life is not fair, we all know that. But this doesnt mean we lose our critical thinking skills and sink into fantasy land or attach ourselves to emotional con artists. "For me it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan

I think condoms are for religious fanatics. It would save on the creations of a lot of self-important, self-aggrandizing, self-promoting, self-delusional cuckoos.

William, you are a complete ass. Your failed attempt to present yourself as an authoritative source in regards to your imaginary realms of indecipherable nonsense is quite illustrative of how damaged the human psyche can become when seeped in moronic mysticism.

William (Andrew) -- your hatred of atheists has again revealed you. Get lost.

After much discussion, reflection and a little research I have managed to figure out what I was saying in the original post that got lost in translation due to me being in a bad mood and rambling on about stuff I hadn't fully thought through at the time! =PSo, condensed:

RELIGION vs. SCIENCE:Some people are just as likely to carry the flag of science as the flag of religion - just as long as it is a flag.

ATHEISM vs. DEISM"Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken"

---

I know a lot of you guys are on the right track, and I never meant to make you feel i was attacking you. When I initially called science a religion it was meant to be an ironic contradiction in terms, like 'believing in nihilism'. I'm still certain that everything is uncertain down to the last, but granted in probability terms that uncertainty is negligible Incendiary classifications of science aside, I did make a subtle distinction at the start that some of you obviously missed (maybe I should have been clearer?), between science as it should be and is for most x-xtians [we're by and large a wary lot nowadays] and 'Science' as a few people appear to be seeing it - ie. the kind of science that gets used to sell shampoo!It was the second I was taking a dig at - so in one sense yes it was definitely a straw man argument ;) If you were lucid enough to see it as that then you and your version of science probably have little to worry about as far as I'm concerned.However, anyone with a religious straw-man version of science in their head should have felt it burn slightly!

-

As an observation (and at risk of drawing further antagonism =S) I really think a small few of us are probably a little too sure of ourselves, and probably still quite black and white in thinking(a peculiarly western neurosis, with it's own defense mechanisms [haha, take no notice, I'm just being facetious!])

Please don't anyone take that as an insult - from my experience, time spent inside xtianity only encourages black and white splitting and misplaced over-confidence, so I certainly don't blame anyone!I just think some of us should probably be more aware of that kind of thing.

I guess in the end everyone likes to have a good rant, and an internet forum post is rarely a good picture of what a person is actually like on a day to day basis.And I should probably stop taking stuff so seriously myself too!

day-glo-raver wrote:"...I did make a subtle distinction at the start that some of you obviously missed ... between science as it should be and is for most x-xtians ... and 'Science' as a few people appear to be seeing it - ie. the kind of science that gets used to sell shampoo!..."

That's very true. It's easy sometimes to miss the distinction (when there even is one) between science and technology. Like the difference between math that uses a calculator and real math. Or "maths", as they call it in the U.K. :-)

Sconner,Hi, I read your post and it appears that your spiritual eyes have been opened yet you are uncertain of where to go and I was wondering, if I could be of any help in answering your questions.Love and kind regardsWilliam

Thanks for getting back to me. The only thing is -- my spiritual eyes have not been opened. My post was entirely made up of rock songs. I used lyrics from the song, Blinded by Science, by Foreigner, lyrics from a song called Truth, by Seether and I capped it off with the lyrics from, The Moment of Truth by Gang Starr -- THAT'S ROCKIN', BABY!. Then to add icing to the cake, I cut and pasted a couple of paragraphs from a "spiritual" site.

I know, I know, you knew all along , riiiiiight?

I have no questions for you. If your the face of spirituality, you need an extreme makeover, that only very expensive plastic surgeons could fix. It is abundantly clear your "spirits" have cracked and scrambled the last egg in your skull. Your loquacious, blathering, incriminate you, every time you bang away at the keyboard, demonstrating that you have zero credibility, no authority, and a plethora of lunacy. As a prophet of "love" you come off as a divisive, demented, bully, wallowing in his own delusions, and the only thing we can hope, is, you either, get off the ecstasy, or seek psychological intervention -- QUICKLY.

Sconner: You poor thing, didn’t you realise I was leading you into exposing your real side? Do you think I haven’t taken the trouble to check the racks that you’ve left in other places?The first thing to note is that you engage in deceit, so how can anyone trust anything you say?The second part of your post clearly demonstrates that you are in a great deal of mental pain, for which you need someone to blame, so that you can seek some perverted comfort by verbally abusing them.My favourite son died in May, I buried him on his birthday, but I didn’t look for someone to blame and I didn’t bury my humanity with him. It is you that needs psychiatric help, so you have my sympathy for the hurt you are so obviously suffering. You come across as a very confused and bitter person, who is living in denial.As I have said, atheists have no respect for other people’s beliefs, its just another controlling, oppressive, dominating religion. Reminds me of something from the lost gospels ‘Who are you killer of men, where are you going space conqueror.I forgive you for your derogatory remarksLoveWilliam

I have freely granted you an unrestrained soapbox to present your views. You have done so in great quantity. You have self-promoted to the extreme. You are not seeking "respect." You are seeking compliance and agreement.

You have offered opinion and rhetoric, but you have offered nothing in the form of evidence so as to convince anyone that your bizarre beliefs are rooted anywhere in the general neighborhood of rational thought or reality.

Dave: Oh dear, I feel like Dr Doolittle.Have you anything constructive to say on Religion v Science and if you are using the word 'science' as a reference to atheism, could you please confirm that?Perhaps I should start a post 'Love v Atheism'.William

You're quite welcome for the "chirp". Judging by the nastiness of your response I'd say you took great offense to being played with (which sconnor did extremely well). That's understandable. I will not make light of your loss, however (and I will take you at your word about this--I have no reason not to).

I will try to confine my responses to scientific aspects, largely because I wish to avoid a protracted discussion with you. I've been down that road before (possibly even with you, under a different name), and there is little to be gained by it. The science is much more clear-cut and holds some faint hope of progress (that is, if you are willing to invest some effort).

Dave: There’s really nothing to forgive, you see if there is no separate spiritual soul, then we are all animals, even if we are arrogant enough to claim to be intelligent. You see this intelligence is not only taking us to the end of our species, it is also taking al other species to extinction.Granted science has given us greater knowledge of our environment and achieved many wonderful things, but one miscalculation and we are all gone. Mankind has always been warlike, I often wonder what the world would be like if all scientific investigation was done in a peaceful world. Anyway, I’m ranting a bit so let’s find a common ground for a discussion. We both want a better world. I have a feeling that the smooch was just your way of seeing if I’m worth eating Will

Jim: I really didn’t get upset at the derogatory comments, but I felt they needed addressing. I thank you for the nature of your response, which seems much more reasonable and civilized. I am very willing to consider your views and of course, I will respect them, even at the times that I may not agree. I think you’ll be surprised at just how much I enjoy science.

In that case, I forgive your arrogance in presenting yourself as the superior human being who is far above the rest of his fellow creatures but deigns to lower himself on occasion in order to engage the pathetically unenlightened.

Crazy Christian fundamentalists and Whacked-out Islamic fundamentalists are more likely to usher in the end of all humanity as opposed to any atheists.

Christianity and Islam are both death cults, wishing for and looking for the bliss that is only available in an imaginary afterlife.

The wonderful second coming of Christ will supposedly bring with it the total destruction of everything and the annihilation of all life.

Oh the beautiful promises of Christendom! Oh the wonders of the Europe when Christianity ruled the nations with an iron fist! The sweet diseases, the horrific tortures, the early deaths, the ignorance and superstition... The Dark Ages when all Europe was transformed into the image of God was truly heaven on earth!

We are all part of the same universe, Willie. Humans are not some sort of extra-terrestrial from another dimension. All life including ours is part and parcel of the same universe. Everything is made of the same stuff. The only unique thing about humans is self-awareness. In a way, the universe, through us (and whatever other self-aware species there might be) has become self-aware.

Another thing, Will. Your bitter denigration of those who don't share your beliefs belies extreme insecurity on your part. If your godlett is real, you can't honestly think she is co-dependent on your apologetic effort to get her metaphysical message across, do you? Then again, perhaps your ego is so inflated as to dwarf even your god.

Dave: In that case, I forgive your arrogance in presenting yourself as the superior human being who is far above the rest of his fellow creatures but deigns to lower himself on occasion in order to engage the pathetically unenlightened.

Will: My apologies for giving you the impression that I was in some way, superior. In reality, I neither look up to, or down at anyone. If the cause is good, then I would always put myself last. I think you are more enlightened than a lot of people I know.

Dave: Crazy Christian fundamentalists and Whacked-out Islamic fundamentalists are more likely to usher in the end of all humanity as opposed to any atheists.

Will: I agree totally. You should see some of the papers that I’ve written on this subject. I have a rather large folder on the contradictions and atrocities. As for their view of the after life, it is completely wrong.

Dave: Christianity and Islam are both death cults, wishing for and looking for the bliss that is only available in an imaginary afterlife.

Will: Agreed, everything they do is for self preservation and their own pleasure (physical).

Dave: The wonderful second coming of Christ will bring with it the total destruction of everything and the annihilation of all life on Earth.

Will: This just goes to show how anti-love their teachings are.

Dave: Oh, the beautiful stories of Christendom. Oh the wonders of the Europe when Christianity ruled the nations with an iron fist!

Will: Oh the evil done in the name of all that is good and right.

Dave: … The Dark Ages when all Europe was transformed into the image of God!

Will: I thought it was the image of a cruel domineering father. Their god was made in man’s image.

Dave: We are all part of the same universe, Willie. Humans are some sort of extra-terrestrial from another dimension. All life is part of the same universe and made of the same stuff. The only unique thing about humans is self-awareness. In a way, the universe, through us (and whatever other self-aware species there might be) has become self-aware.

Will: We are actually quite close on that one 

Dave: Another thing, Will. Your constant denigration of those who don't share your beliefs belies extreme insecurity. If your godlett is real, you can't honestly think she is co-dependent on your apologetic effort to get her message across, do you?

Will: Let’s be fair, I took a lot of stick (hug) I did mention that no-one has to share my beliefs. There’s no fear or punishment and I teach that we are all innocent. I’m actually very secure and happy. I have no fear of anything, neither god or death. I just have a message to deliver and I can only do my best. If I fail, it’s God’s mistake for picking me out of the nirvana I was in. I’m a free spirit so I’m just doing what I think is good and right. I know that I’m not the only one with the message. I still question everything. You know my friend, I get pissed of with some of the so-called spiritual people, and I do feel embarrassed at some of the things they are claiming.I’ve done an article on ego, it actually refers to ‘the self’, which is awareness, desire and will. Everything we do is for ‘the self’. I’m off on holiday to the coast tomorrow.Love and kind regardsWilliam

...didn’t you realise I was leading you into exposing your real side? Do you think I haven’t taken the trouble to check the racks that you’ve left in other places?

Yeah right, You were on to me the whole time, you just waited and waited and waited. What a cunning, delusional, asshole you are, exposing me, as a liar, when in reality, I was joyfully mocking you with satire.

The second part of your post clearly demonstrates that you are in a great deal of mental pain, for which you need someone to blame, so that you can seek some perverted comfort by verbally abusing them.

My grief has nothing to do with your insane, bullshit. Your bloviating speaks for itself as vomit from a loony. I can assure you my pain is not the impetus for ridiculing you; it is the ludicrous, never-ending, psycho-babbling of a lunatic with no corroborative, demonstrable, evidence, who is in the same plain of existence, as a man who fancies himself Napoleon Bonaparte and practices voodoo at Bellevue. Instead of looking for reasons why we are mocking and belittling you, maybe you should give yourself a good hard look and evaluate your "reality". When everyone on the outside questions your distorted view of reality, it's probably time for you to seek evaluation from a professional -- you got nothing to lose. What could it hurt?

It is you that needs psychiatric help, so you have my sympathy for the hurt you are so obviously suffering.

And I have sympathy for your obvious, psychological problems and delusions of grandeur, but unlike you, I am seeking professional help from both a psychologist, psychiatrist and a grief counseling group called Compassionate Friends. My needs are taken care of for the overwhelming pain and grief I have have undergone -- I wish I could say the same for you.

I forgive you for your derogatory remarks

You can take your forgiveness and shove it down your fucking throat, you delusional fuck-tard. You are a fucking, whack-job. Think of me as administering "tough love" like Hell's Kitchen star,Gordon Ramsay, so you can get some, much needed, help. Can you keep forgiving me for my derogatory remarks with your unwavering love?

Sconnor,Of course I can keep forgiving you.You speak of your overwhelming grief and pain, you have no idea what I've had to suffer in life, yet I'm still standing and I don't have to take my hurt out on other people. Perhaps if you didn't ridicule people, you wouldn't get it back. If you can't take it, don't give it. And if you have no respect for other people's beliefs, then don't expect them to have any for yours.I suggest that your overwhelming grief is the measure of the depth of love that you have. Unfortunately due to my overwhelming empathy,I now find myself feeling your grief, so yes, of course I forgive you and I hope you can forgive me for trying to defend my beliefs. Love and peaceWilliam

William H. is a malignant narcissist. Any attention he gets, positive or negative is a source of supply for him. Let him go, don't respond to him anymore.Intimidators need your fear and anger, without it they are powerless. Abandon him. He is only kept alive by these posts. Delete him.

Willie said, You speak of your overwhelming grief and pain, you have no idea what I've had to suffer in life, yet I'm still standing and I don't have to take my hurt out on other people.

This is what your delusional fucked-up cranium-cavity just can't comprehend -- I'm NOT using my pain and grief to take my hurt out on you. I'm ridiculing you, because of your dumb-ass, unsupported, blatherskite, that has no basis in reality. You can't accept that your babblings are unsubstantiated nonsense, so you resort to blaming it on me instead of honorably recognizing that it's all you, baby.

If you can't prove any of your extraordinary, claims, then they are meaningless. You can continue to wallow in your delusional bliss, but as for me I'm taking trulin's advice.

"Science is simply a vast, mostly useful collection of suppositions upon suppositions upon theories about uncertainties..."

This is absolutely correct. I would classify it as a leap of faith.

What is incorrect is to classify faith in Jesus as “blind faith”. The Catholic Catechism in Part I: The Profession of Faith (I am not a member of the Roman Catholic denomination) does a nice job of describing how one becomes a believer [26 – as introduction]:

“We begin our profession of faith by saying: "I believe" or "We believe." Before expounding the Church's faith, as confessed in the Creed, celebrated in the liturgy, and lived in observance of God's commandments and in prayer, we must first ask what "to believe" means. Faith is man's response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life. Thus we shall consider first that search (Chapter One), then the divine Revelation by which God comes to meet man (Chapter Two), and finally the response of faith (Chapter Three).”

It is the claim of many here that they are ex-Christians. One should hope that being an ex-Christian is impossible. For what hope is in so great an apostasy? No, what is far more likely is that you all were never Christian to begin with. Or, are you actually claiming to have seen this “superabundant light” only to later reject it? I think not. What you are saying is that you hung out with Christians. You were involved in their activities but you were not committed to the cross of Christ.

I suppose that if one assumes that sensory observation is the only reliable source of information and the universe is a closed system where material processes of nature reign in and of themselves, then it would be logical to conclude scientific theory trumps all other attempts to understand reality.

What I am saying is that the two aforementioned assumptions amount to an exaggerated and ill advised leap of faith that I am not willing to take.

If you believe such things as modern medicine, which is founded on scientific principles, as well as the conveniences of modern technology, which are also founded on scientific principles, are all unreliable, and thus, a "leap of faith", then by all means, DON'T take "that leap".

Yes, in lieu of modern transportation, you can simply walk everywhere, or take a horse-drawn carriage. In lieu of modern utilities, you can perhaps use candles for light; a wood-burning stove for cooking; snow for the "ice box", and a mega-phone for communicating with your Christian friends. In lieu of modern medical treatment for you, or your family, you can simply "pray", or perhaps try smearing a little bird's blood on the affected area(like in the bible).

And finally, in lieu of a personal computer, you can simply chisel your thoughts in stone slab, or perhaps, write them on cylinder seals, and send them, "pony-express", to the Webmaster, and he'll post them for you(if he ever recovers from laughing his ass off)

Mel: "I suppose that if one assumes that sensory observation is the only reliable source of information..."

Mel, provide at least "one" example of information you hold, that was not processed with your bio-senses.

If you can't... then, the bio-senses (which you are using to make posts) are the "only" source you have to acquire information.

Mel, your own sensory based being is "evidence" against some "other" information reception mechanism. In order for you to "assume" there are more (reliable) ways, you actually have to "reject" your own sensory based being in the process.

Mel: "...and the universe is a closed system where material processes of nature reign..."

Who needs to "conclude" or make an "assumption" regarding a closed/non-closed Universe, in order to "know" by "demonstration" that material "processes" are highly predictable within "Nature"?

A material process can be learned by basic environmental testing; "without" any premise statement regarding a closed Universe "at all".

Mel, if "you" assume that someone has to accept Nature as a "closed" or "non-closed" system, in order to accept "material processes", they "you" are making the assumption that material processes "must" be "dependent" on a "closed" or "non-closed" Universe.

Your own "being" is composed of a "material process"; do you require the "knowledge" of a closed or non-closed system to observe using your "senses" that you exist?

Of course, you could always "reject" your own being - again.

Mel: "...in and of themselves, then it would be logical to conclude scientific theory trumps all other attempts to understand reality."

Mel, "Reality" exists as a single "context". You can attempt to "understand" the "Context" of that "single" Existence in as many ways as you wish... you can create multiple "sub-contexts" of this Reality based on your own method of understanding and store your sub-contexts using cognitive compartmentalization.

However, no matter how many ways you think about this Reality... it doesn't "change" the single "Existence" and "Context" of this Reality.

You can either choose to align your understanding with this "singular" Context, or... not.

There are those disciplines that make it a "goal", to achieve a more complete understanding of that "singular" context - objectively.

If it is "not" the goal of a person to align their understanding with Present Reality - that we share... then, they shouldn't "describe" their "understanding" to "others" as being "Contextually" representative of our "singular" Reality.

Mel: "What I am saying is that the two aforementioned assumptions amount to an exaggerated and ill advised leap of faith that I am not willing to take."

What I am saying is that your two aforementioned assumptions amount to an exaggerated and ill advised leap of faith that I am not willing to take.

Assumption 1: More than one way to acquire information, beyond bio-senses.

Mel,I confess to being frustrated that this particular medium does not make it easy to transmit the rage caused by your assertion that ex-Xtians can only be ex-Xtians because they were never really Xtians in the first place. Self-control and compassion prevent me from venting my spleen in English, as I would wish.Let me merely say that your bigoted, complacent, hateful, thoughtless and loveless assertion is probably the the greatest cause of people losing the scales from their eyes and giving up on the "god notion".Consider this: if a person is now a xtian believer then, by your logic, it can only be because they were not previously a real non-believer, in which case their belief and hence their salvation is not real.Learn just a little logic, please - it is not a full replacement for love and compassion but might go some way to filling the hole in your being where those attributes would normally reside.

William, do you have anything new to add? You keep coming back here saying the same things over and over. We know what you're saying, we just don't agree with it. So why do you keep coming back with your atheist-phobic paranoia? Don't you think this is a waste of time?

Ken: "I forgive you and I hope you can forgive me for trying to defend my beliefs."

Free speech is the ideal that primes the opportunities for those who accept; it allows people the ability to understand each 'other'/their being (in general) via communication.

However, a Christian by definition is an individual who proclaims Jesus (per Paul's visions, while he never met a Jesus) as Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament; an individual who accepts the New Testament as "authoritative" and "prescriptive".

It is ignorant for an individual to "proclaim" that they are attempting to "defend" their belief... a "belief" is self-held and doesn't require defense.

However... proselytizing to others, in an effort to "challenge" another persons' belief(s), ideas, etc... well, that is much different.

When it comes to "free speech", there are "differing" views on who has proper "authority" in a discussion.

An individual without religious affirmation has the "authority" of the government to speak freely, not a "Divine" authority, as Christians don.

In a "religious" discussion, the Christian assumes they have a "greater" authority than the non-believer... in essence; the non-believer in a "religious" discussion has no "relevance” (relevant free speech), because their voices are un-authoritative.

The Hebrew Bible spells it out quite plainly...

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Note, that the Christian Bible doesn't say to teach "some" people... it says to teach "them", construed as "all"... people.

I don't have a personal problem discussing religion with a Christian... had a discussion a week or so ago.

The first challenge in such a discussion is to reach a point where both parties accept "no" immediate "authoritative" position over the other. In short, if a Christian says they have the "authority" of a God backing their "free preach", then... there is no sense in going any further in the discussion.

Communication requires a two-way exchange of ideas... not... a "one way". There "is" a difference between being talked "to", than being talked "at". If a Christian assumes religious "authority", they are primed to talk "at" those whom they believe to be "inferior".

Personally, I am typically put-off when someone talks "at" me; regarding "any "matter, to include "religion" - such an individual lacks respect for the ideas of those who think differently.

When I am dis-respected, because someone believes they hold the "authority" to do so... I dare say; free speech becomes a superficial covering for something of far greater importance.

It is not the "ideal" of free speech that is the problem in my experience... it's how one "implements" their right of free speech that is of utmost concern; and the Christian "way" of implementing that ideal is to "assert" a "superior" position via "Divine" rite, per their Bible.

How many Christians are willing to “suspend” their “belief” in “God”, [prior] to a discussion with a non-believer? I would think the statistics would be significantly low, and those who would be willing, I would suggest have/are moved/ing away from fundamentalism.

Dave8, in the post that begins:"...Free speech is the ideal that primes..." etc.

Excellent analysis, Dave8. I recognised everything in it as a feeling I get listening to Xtian "defenders" (proselytisers) of the faith, but which I haven't taken the trouble to put into words. Thanks to you for doing so.

It's true that if a person thinks they're getting their ideas and rationales from the best source going, they are unlikely to meet you halfway, where ideas stand a chance of being changed.

It's also why religionists have to be watched nonstop and their desired excesses kept constantly in check. Someone once described currency traders as having "no restraint gland", referring to their unbounded greed. The same can be said of religionists (any religion, not just Xtianity) too. Look what happens any/every time they gain ascendency in the public sphere. Like Nazis, all their previous devotion to the ideals of free speech are jettisoned pronto. It was true during the Xtian middle ages and it's just as true in the tribalism of know-nothing modern day Islam and Hinduism. And the smaller the town, and the lower the education threshold, the closer to hand the lynch mob. Just look at the Nicole Smalkowski case in Hardesty, Oklahoma.

If a Xtian apologist starts talking to me, the meter starts running in my mind, and if that person doesn't say something halfway both smart and original in the first couple of minutes, my interest level and cooperation drop to zero.

Many of the posters on this site have been very religious a considerable length of time in their lives. Many of those feel burned and cheated by Christianity. Many are still surrounded by religious zealots, and must deal with religious fanaticism on a daily basis at home, at work, and throughout their communities. They come here to get some things off their chests, rant, rave, and find like-minded individuals to communicate with.

Since your posts are degenerating into insult, and since this is a website made by and for ex-Christians, I bid you adieu. Good luck with the new religion you've invented. May your disciples be happy.

It was reveled to me by God that faith in Jesus Christ His Son is the only way to be reconciled with the Father. This was done not by any sensory contact. It was done in my spirit by His Spirit.

If you assume that noting exists apart from the material, then how could you be open to things – God – existing outside of it?

glebealyth,

Are you telling me that a person who has come to know in their heart the infinite creator of the universe, talk with Him, walk with Him, could then decide: You know what? I do not want anything to do with this Almighty Perfect Loving God. No I am sorry that is impossible!

Melvin_H_Fox said... If you assume that noting exists apart from the material, then how could you be open to things – God – existing outside of it?

Mel,In my own case, your assumption would be incorrect here.I didn't grow up just assuming that nothing existed outside the "material", in fact, I assumed quite the opposite.

After spending decades of investigating the subject of things supernatural, I had no choice but to conclude that there is zero credible evidence for such a claim.So no Mel, I don't just "assume" that the supernatural, and your god, doesn't exists, but rather no one has provided us with any evidence to support such a claim, so why should I assume the supernatural exists when it has no evidence to support it?

>Are you telling me that a person who has come to know in their heart the infinite creator of the universe, talk with Him, walk with Him, could then decide: You know what? I do not want anything to do with this Almighty Perfect Loving God. No I am sorry that is impossible!

Mel, are you truly telling us that your personal experience with god includes strolls in the park, with him walking beside you, all while having two-way conversations with this being?If that's the case, then I have to suggest to you that you're in need of some professional help or need to stop overdoing those hallucinatory drugs.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of ex-xtians here did not ever believe that jesus was so realistic in their lives, that he would be taking morning strolls with them and directly answering their questions in-person.Perhaps because we didn't have such a personal experience, it's not very difficult for our cognitive minds to realize that there had never been a jesus/god in our lives and that our own brains (via strong emotions) were making it all up instead.

I will never understand why xtians can't comprehend that it's quite possible for a person to come to realize that god is nothing but a myth and what we once FELT, was nothing more than the result of us wanting to believe in something beyond ourselves.

Perhaps one day Mel, you might come to realize that this personal jesus experience, is nothing more than a delusion, caused by either your own emotions or perhaps in your case, with some extra "material" help as well.

Mel: "It was reveled to me by God that faith in Jesus Christ His Son is the only way to be reconciled with the Father."

Mel... if you have had a revelation by a Divine Infinite, then you have self-evidence via experience of such a being in your terms.

If you conclude that this being is not capable of lying or deceiving you, then... you require no faith to believe in Jesus Christ, as you have a Divine Infinite's revelation to you on the matter - the best evidence you could ever garner.

Thus, you are faithless, and... "Absolutely" Certain of your position, and all aspects of your religion.

A few questions come to mind though. First, how would you "ever" be capable of transferring "your" experience to me?

Secondly, and more importantly to me... how do you reconcile the conflict between a trustworthy (by your standards) Divine Infinite, and such a being that deliberately fated humanity (if the Divine Infinite is Omniscient) to a debt that requires reconciliation?

Something to ponder upon. While you no longer require faith per your revelation, to support your Certain Absolute belief in the existence of a Divine Infinite - you do still require a type of "faith".

You need moral faith, regarding your Divine Infinite; the being that enslaved and condemned humanity to an eternal debt is trustworthy to give you proper guidance for reconciliation.

If your intent is to provide information, then you have succeeded.

However, while your revelation leaves you without the need for faith in the existence of a Divine Infinite... I am left with your words alone and a requirement of faith to accept your information of a Divine Infinite.

Doesn't seem hardly fair does it?

Hardly fair; as... my faith in the existence of a Divine Infinite would rest totally upon your moral integrity and sound judgment.

If you actually do extend a moral faith to your Divine Infinite that has indeed enslaved humanity upon birth, with a reward of eternal servitude/Heaven or torture/Hell, then... I have reservations about your moral integrity and ability to make sound judgments.

Do you believe others should heed the words of an individual who has shown infidelity in matters of a moral conscience?

Mel, I lack your revelation, and willingness to blindly trust any being who would proudly use coercion (Original Sin) and ultimatums (Heaven/Hell) to ensure Divine servitude for eternity.

It seems I have no control over "revelation", if I am to have one, I can only wait for the moment.

However, if I were to have a revelation; I'd not make the moral leap of faith that you have. In short, what you revere and call God (that which is Ultimately Good per Christian tradition and in your understanding)... I would not.

An existent does not automatically connote something "Good" and worthy of my reverence and awe - if I were to ever have a similar revelation as you Mel, knowing enslavement and servitude are the primary tools used by the existent... I would not bestow the word Go(o)d, upon such.

If you would like to leave the "general" term God, and move towards the specific, i.e., Yahweh, etc., and particular attributes; I'd still implicitly reserve the right to aesthetically and/or morally bestow the word Go(o)d onto such an existent or not.

At this time, and per your description; I'd choose to not call what you suggest exists as Go(o)d, nor am I likely to ever change that moral observation.

The question of existence shifts to that of persistence... is there "any" compelling reason for someone to persist in seeking out a connection with a possible existent that wouldn't be given a moral A+ rating of Go(o)d?

To me... no. Thus, ends any inclination I’d ever have to seek the Christian Divine.

Eel shepherd: "If a Xtian apologist starts talking to me, the meter starts running in my mind, and if that person doesn't say something halfway both smart and original in the first couple of minutes, my interest level and cooperation drop to zero."

Hey Eel Shepherd, totally agree. While I do not run people away when they suggest they are Christian, I have little need to be talked to or at.

If a Christian can't support a logically sound moral foundation to justify their Divine Infinite's actions per the bible... then there is little need to talk "with" them any further.

The best that could come from that conversation is their assessment on what Go(o)d is, and why they ascribe that word to a believed existent named Yahweh; and we'd likely disagree on what constitutes Ultimate (Universal) Good & Moral, since we can only speak from a subjective point of view on matters of good/moral anyway ;-)

Melvin Fox...It was [revealed] to me by God that faith in Jesus Christ His Son is the only way to be reconciled with the Father.

Dear Melvin,

The above statement is utterly meaningless, until/unless you provide evidence that there exists a predicament, or a dilemma, for which there needs to be this alleged "reconciliation".

Here, let me show you what I mean:

The Dig'em Frog revealed to me that the Kelloggs Corporation wants you to limit your cereal consumption to Kelloggs brand product. Faith in the Dig'em Frog is the only way to reconcile your past of eating brands of breakfast cereals other than Kelloggs!

See, Mel'?...silly, huh?

continues...This[Divine revelation] was done not by any sensory contact. It was done in my spirit by His Spirit.

So then, we can safely assume that your Holy Bible is of no use to you, whatsoever(since it requires eyesight, which is "sensory", to obtain its contents)

Thus, since you have no use for your holy hand book, and since these days we need to be more resourceful, might I recommend lining the cat's litter box with the pages, or perhaps, using the pages in conjuction with little Windex, and cleaning the sliding glass doors? Both applications work wonderfully!

"Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. Because of it the ancients were well attested. By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible."

So you see I have faith. The walk and talk I referred to before are spiritual exercises. That is the point. They take place apart from the physical universe. The fact that someone who is not (and never was) a Christian thinks these things the ravings of a lunatic is understandable; in fact it is scriptural (1 Corinthians 1: 18):

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I am not capable of transferring my experience to you. I can only testify that it happens.

Your second question is important and I repost it here:

"... how do you reconcile the conflict between a trustworthy (by your standards) Divine Infinite, and such a being that deliberately fated humanity (if the Divine Infinite is Omniscient) to a debt that requires reconciliation?"

God’s desire is that we would love Him. Since love is a decision, in order to make this possible God must supply another option. This second option is sin. We are created beings and we are not God. Therefore, we are not capable, as He is, of always deciding rightly. Therefore, as you have said, we are domed in need of reconciliation. But, if you do not recognize the ultimate act of love – that is the Cross of Calvary – you miss the grace of God’s character. He provides a way that if we would choose but once to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, then He, having fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law, has the power and authority to restore us to Himself for all time. My question is: Why would anyone ever reject such an offer?

He is trustworthy and His promise is true: “Whomsoever, calls on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.”

"So then, we can safely assume that your Holy Bible is of no use to you, whatsoever(since it requires eyesight, which is "sensory", to obtain its contents)"

No, what we can say is that the Holy Bible is of no use to you in your present state since the sensory experience alone is meaningless. You can read the words but the message is lost to you because your spirit is “dead”. Or to put it more bluntly, as Jesus did, “You are of your father; the Devil.” John 8.

God is capable of communicating the message without the book. He has done so countless times. He simply chooses to use the physical and the sensory to augment His message because of the hardness of our hearts. Yes He is willing to bend over backwards if only we would listen to Him.

Hi guys, hope you are all keeping well.Just popped in with some petrol for the fire! :-)

If I can go back to the main topic 'religion v science', the way I see it is, science creates a nuclear bomb and religion pushes the button, so which side is the winner?Atheists are not without love and followers of religion are not without hate. see www.love-themeaningoflife.com/oneworld

Spiritual life and death are measured by the presence or absence of love, compassion and forgiveness. All trees are judged by their fruit and all people, regardless of their beliefs, are judged by their love or lack of it. And so to conclude, science will always overcome that which is wrong in established religions and established religions will always overcome that which is wrong in science.

Love will always overcome that which is wrong, wherever it may be.Love and peace to you allWilliam